the schools of scheme, scam and sham; a book

The Schools

of Scheme, Scam & Sham

A Common Sense Guide to

Troubleshoot the Education Industry

By

Gerald J. Furnkranz

The Schools

of Scheme, Scam & Sham

A Common Sense Guide to

Troubleshoot the Education Industry

By

Gerald J. Furnkranz

Copyright © 2008 By Gerald J. Furnkranz

Dedicated To: My parents, Amelia Furnkranz and Ferdinand J. Furnkranz, who provided me with a solid foundation, to survive and thrive and live a happy and productive life.

& The school boards and superintendents I served with and communicated with after (1997-2007) for practicing unmitigated arrogance which revealed the unvarnished truth.

The Schools of Scheme, Scam and Sham

Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. The Evolution of Education ............................................................................... 1 2. The Power Of, Or The Power In Education ....................................................... 12 3. The Four Cs Of The Education Industry............................................................ 16 4. Systematic Suppression of the Truth.................................................................. 27 5. Special Executive Session.................................................................................. 36 6. Intimidation As A Tool ...................................................................................... 41 7. Bending Language, Bending Truth .................................................................... 48 8. A School District Sage ....................................................................................... 55 9. Indoctrinated Into the Profession; Not Educated to Teach................................. 63 10. A Philosophical Discussion With The Media .................................................... 71 11. School Boards and Superintendents ................................................................... 78 12. The Congdon Regime; Cronyism and Corruption ............................................. 98 13. Programs............................................................................................................. 129 14. Final Encounter .................................................................................................. 145 15. Illegal Campaigning ........................................................................................... 150 16. Honesty and Integrity in Education.................................................................... 161 17. A Cutting Edge Athletic Code of Conduct......................................................... 169 18. Scientific Scammers; Accessories to the Deceit ................................................ 179 19. Education Elitism and NEA Illusions ................................................................ 186 20. The Dedrick Narrative........................................................................................ 195 21. Combating Education Industry Corruption ........................................................ 211 22. Solution to Sloppiness, A Tool of the Education Industry................................. 222


Cartoons Cartoons Page Wanted .............................................................................................................................Front History of American Education ....................................................................................... 2 History of American Education (Part II) ......................................................................... 3 Character (Hi Sailor! New In Town?) ............................................................................. 51 Integrity (Mt. Braintheft) ................................................................................................. 58 The Massage .................................................................................................................... 78 A Tangled Web................................................................................................................ 81 Superintendent’s Tenure .................................................................................................. 88 School Board Loyalty ...................................................................................................... 96 Emerald City .................................................................................................................... 103 The Cannibal.................................................................................................................... 112 Free Drugs........................................................................................................................ 122 Cheerleaders..................................................................................................................... 128 Snake Pit .......................................................................................................................... 151 Atlas ................................................................................................................................. 182 Pigs at the Trough ............................................................................................................ 190 Rubber Stamp................................................................................................................... 199 Ignor ................................................................................................................................. 202 An Educated Horse .......................................................................................................... 226 Road To Roslyn ...............................................................................................................Back

Foreword

With the permission of Ted Lax, newly voted to the Elmira School Board, I am using his letter to the editor as my foreword. He describes intelligently and simply yet eloquently what most if not all school districts need to make education successful.

The transparency is necessary for all educators; school boards, administrators and teachers alike.

Elmira School Board Slate Vows To Listen Three Winning Candidates Outline Goals For Change

Ted Lax • June 3, 2008 Star-Gazette Letter To The Editor

The election for the school board on May 20 offered two opposing slates. One was made up mostly of incumbents who believed in the status quo. The other promised to change how the school board operated. The latter slate, consisting of Diana Brewer, Larry McGovern Jr. and I, won seats on the school board. Both incumbent candidates lost. It was a clear message that voters shared our vision for a new direction for the school board.

Our platform was one promising transparency: "We believe that all discussions and policy matters before the board of education should be an open process. All community members, parents, students, teachers, support staff and school administrators should have an opportunity to hear and be heard. The three of us believe the school board has failed in this obligation. We ran as a slate so that we may change how this board operates. Our goal is to reform this board to become what it was elected to be: representatives of the people who elected them -- not above the people who elected them."

We all wish to do well for the children of our community. We do not believe that every decision of the school board has been unsound. The process used for decision making, however, is terribly flawed. Each success allows for too many failures. That methodology needs to be corrected to ensure that it works each time. Our goal is to avoid past missteps and make what has worked even better. There needs to be consistency in policy for proper evaluation of programs, committees and individuals. To that end, we recommend: •There should be defined goals/job descriptions. •There should be a cost basis to be fiscally responsible. •There should be a clear definition of what is considered success. •There should be community involvement before decisions are finalized. •There should be timelines for monitoring progress. •There should be an end date for a proper evaluation. •There should be public evaluations.

•There should be fewer executive sessions. •There should be shorter board meetings. •There should be reasonable answers to all reasonable questions.

To supporters who helped or voted for us, we offer our thanks. To those who did not, we hope that our actions in fulfilling our promises will change your opinion. We are only three votes of nine. But we are supported by the votes of the many in our community who elected us. We will do our best to try to convince the other six board members of the correctness of our position. If necessary, we are prepared to do as Samuel Johnson suggested: "Though we cannot out-vote them we will out-argue them."

Without an open process there can never be accountability. Accountability leads to an informed electorate. An informed electorate is the best guarantee to having good representation. We encourage the members of our community to be involved not just at election time but at all times. As your elected representatives, we are answerable to you. If we should stray from our core principles, we hope you will be there to remind us of what we stood for. Our promise to you is that we will always listen. Ted Lax of West Elmira was elected to the Elmira school board on May 20, 2008. His three-year term starts July 1, 2008. Mr. Lax has laid out an excellent plan. Whether or not he is allowed to implement such a plan or is blocked by an education system which revels in the status quo will be seen. I wish him the best of luck. The futures of children depend on his success.

Introduction

Little did I know, when I got on the school board, the problems with public education would become so obvious. However, I was even more surprised to discover the behaviors creating those problems were an accepted part of the actions of educators, promoted by the education industry.

*** All I know is what I see, when I can’t believe what I am told.

*** Educators, under the auspices of the Education Industry, have practiced and perfected the profitable processes of failure. They have become so competent and comfortable with failure, they have no idea what success is and how to achieve it. Their view of success has become so highly distorted and warped; basic values and ethics have been lost. Their idea of educational success revolves around their own personal, professional and political agendas and public money collected and used to promote that agenda. They have even redefined right and wrong with the warped and distorted views of their education collective.

*** I apologize to the people reading this edition of “The Schools of Scheme, Scam and Sham”. This book is not edited and refined to the degree I would like it. In fact, it is far short. However, I believe this book is needed now. When I watch my local school district, neighboring school districts and the failure of education at the state and national level, I feel it is necessary to move this book ahead more quickly than I should. These revelations need to be given to the public as soon as possible so the damage of the education industry can be reversed. One thing for certain, most educators will dismiss what I say. I am giving them anadditional excuse. The grammatical and typographical errors in this book will give arrogant and hypocritical educators a reason to dismiss what I say without having to pay any attention to the substance. They would have found another reason to do this anyway. So, I really am not worried. Still, I apologize for making this available in such a rough form.


1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION; THE EVOLUTION OF EDUCATION

Just think of that perfectly profitable business. It is one which requires the gathering of few resources up front. The business in which you are selling something that is nebulous; intangible. People really aren’t sure what it is. You are selling an invisible product which people are depending upon your integrity to certify they are getting.

The Greeks did it with few resources other than perhaps a few of the greatest minds civilization has known. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato passed their knowledge in opened air classrooms. They espoused a way of thinking and spread thought through dissertation and opened discussion.

Other civilizations, starting out, used much the same format. Those civilizations of India, China and even the Native American passed knowledge in this way. Great philosophers and teachers somehow passed on the best of civilization, critical thinking and common sense, to move it further forward, by word of mouth, tribal knowledge, in spite of the control they handled; the corrupt temptations of the power they wielded that were present to seduce them.

Cave man did it in a similar, more primitive way with positive and negative grunts, the form of dissertation and debate to transfer tribal knowledge. Talking, listening, discussing and debating were the main elements of education. Not much, in the way of resources, was required of this system other than the minds of those men.

These methods of education took little up front investment to function other than the time of the scholars or sages involved. It could be done with no resources other than what comes from or is concocted in the brain. This form of education flourished in many early societies for many centuries.

In the teachings of these great educators they held the tools, the keys, to mold and control societies. For the most part, they controlled the greed and lust for power present in human nature to make their teaching relevant, productive and a power to move civilization forward. This took people of great integrity, will and discipline. They had the strength to promote education to its highest aspirations.

Please, don’t get the idea education of this time was always good and pure. There are always assaults on the good of education. There are always people seeking power that are aware of how education (dispersing information) can help them. This is alluded to in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. Any assault on the truth degrades the quality and content of education.

Written language helped education to become more consistent and perpetuated more easily. Still, it didn’t aid as much in the classroom until the advent of mass printed books. Until then education was usually reserved to the clergy and the rich. This barrier could easily keep the poor and peasant classes in their place, creating a self-perpetuating cast system. It kept the masses, the peasants, ignorant and under control.

The pioneer education of a new country took a new form. Education progressed, but was passed on in one room school houses where books were treasured and became a primary tool to educate. Education was a privilege that most Americans thought should be a right.

Sadly it has become a right that most don’t see as their responsibility to take advantage. Where college professors used to say, you have the privilege of my classroom, it is your responsibility to learn. Far too many students and parents today take the tack, I am in

A Common Sense Guide to Troubleshoot the Education Industry

2

your classroom, it is your responsibility to teach me. And by the way, I must be happy and have many activities to make me so. Both these selfish attitudes assault good education.

I digress, let’s move forward with education. The books of an assortment of writers and thinkers were used to bring a diversity of quality ideas from anywhere and everywhere. I’m not saying there wasn’t present a biased censorship based on preference of selections, but still a wide variety of ideas were made available to broaden the thinking of individuals.

This made up for not having Socrates, Aristotle or Plato to lead classes all over the wilderness. The advent of books and the ability to print the written word made the extreme quality (brain power) of the teachers less important. Average thinkers could use books to help them formulate and express ideas in a way most everyone could benefit. Advanced education could be made available to more people, even those of the middle and poorer classes.

With the advent of mass produced books, teaching children to read and write effectively became primary requirements of education. In fact, if they knew how to read and write sufficiently, they could effectively use books to teach themselves if they so desired. The tools of learning would be available to each and every student that had cultivated the skills of reading and writing.

Still, even then, education didn’t take many resources. A few books, some paper and writing implements, a teacher and the education process could begin. Successful education had occurred before these implements, but could now be carried farther and to more people. With these aids you didn’t need a Socrates, Aristotle or Plato to do the teaching. With these resources, more teachers, with less skill could teach the basics of education to students who would be presented with the tools to teach themselves.

Thomas Jefferson once said education of the people is essential to the survival of democracy. When decisions on leadership rest with the people, it is not hard to see why an educated and informed; a thinking electorate is so important. The Evolution of the Schools of Arrogance, Hypocrisy and Deceit


3

Now education is a major industry. February 2008 PBSs Nightly Business Report cited them the second largest industry in the United States. It has taken educational simplicity and made it conveniently complex. Common sense once the heart of education has been ripped from the system, destroyed and buried and replaced with education maxims and mythology that try to make education some kind of mystic science.

Why? Perhaps the purposes of today’s educators are different, and education of students is not the primary goal. Teaching individuals to be independent is not a desired goal. Individualism and self-sufficiency is not a desired purpose of an (Education Industry) that behaves and finds their power in being a collective.

Self-interest is the motivation of the education industry. Carving out a special niche in society for educators seems to be their goal. Manipulating education so it serves their needs and purposes is the desire. Educating, no indoctrinating children into the politics prescribed by educators which most serves their socialist agendas, commands their energies.


4

Educators are dedicated to the education industry; their unions, associations, vacations, pensions and paychecks. Dedication to the industry means its health, resources and money going in, not results or well educated students coming out. Needy and dependent students add to the profitability of the education industry.

This dedication to themselves puts greater value on input over output, show over substance, implementation over effectiveness and efficiency. These are all methods educators promote today. While society has provided more and more opportunities to self-educate, educators have watered down their roll to avoid educating, impeding a students ability to self-educate.

They have constructed their education vision to be something that leaves students dependent on them. Dependent students as children become dependent students as adults and remain dependent at the mercy of the education industry their entire lives.

While self-education could be more easily accomplished today with all the resources and mechanisms available, they teach less. They promote subjects and programs of less importance so children, students, even as adults will not have developed the self-education skills sufficiently. They do this so the people will still be dependent on them for education, more like indoctrination in thoughts and philosophies.

The more the education industry fails to teach, the more teaching hours are necessary to make up for those failures. More teaching hours mean more teachers, union members, association members dependent on and dedicated to the education industry. Also, the cry must go out for more money.

Today’s educators are more motivated by their political agendas, which are designed to enhance their personal and professional profit and power. They push input over output, avoiding responsibility and accountability. Half-heart effort and shoddy work aids their industry because they cry, “They need more money, more resources, to achieve success”.

“They need more resources to make it fun for the students, because they will only learn if it is fun.” They need more toys and gadgets, doodads and whatsits, all these things to do something that was once done with a minimum of materials. Failure expands today’s education. What industry would rise above this if they were rewarded for failure? None! They see where the profit lies and follow the money!

Early on it was done with a minimum of resources because education was once the goal. Now indoctrination is the goal of educators. Indoctrination of students, the children who become adults, into their political agendas for the purpose of their own profit and power is their purpose. Corruption has deprived education of the purity of goals it once had.

Proper education requires integrity. It requires a purity of purpose to deliver to society those things which move society in a positive direction. Allowing corruption, arrogance and hypocrisy to dominate education threatens the entire society.

While the halls of education can be a place for miracles to happen, where the wonders of the world can unfold before a student’s eyes, it can also be the opposite if it loses its honesty. Even Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels satirized the arrogant behavior of the education industry at the time for this behavior. If not tended and nurtured with integrity, education can create an environment were corruption is incubated, matured and unleashed, guiding society in the wrong directions.

Such a system can be extremely profitable to those in the industry. Personal profit and power can be derived from this warping of public education. This is where we are today.


5

Failing education serves the education industry agendas. Good education, so important to democracy, threatens educator’s quest for socialism. Failed education, the indoctrination educators deliver, serves the socialist agenda. Education; Selling Out The Community And The Children

A self-satisfied contentment has settled over the education industry. Educators have diligently focused efforts to make their work easier and more comfortable for themselves. This has created and environment where educators have become extremely comfortable and satisfied with self. Like overeating at Thanksgiving, they have become fat and happy and not very opened to movement. One of the few times educators become energized is when their comfortable kingdom is questioned or threatened.

The politics that have evolved in the education industry because of their stance focuses on their personal and professional profit and power. Enhancing their position in society dominates their strategies.

Part of this strategy is to focus on formal education as the only education. That education doled out by the professional educator is given elevated status. The theories, theorems, laws, propositions and programs handed out by the industry are given greater weight than those lessons of life experience, life experts and commonsense.

This precludes life experience and commonsense as having any major value. It pushes wisdom to educators living in their own selfish bubble, their vision obscured by their vast egos before them. Lifers, those gaining wisdom through living experience are relegated to the back seats of the intelligence bus.

They have discounted the idea their role is to give young students the basics to call upon and use as they go through life. They see themselves as giving the thoughts and ideas needed to mold lives properly and take society in the direction they deem as the proper one.

They see their life as reality, unaware they are living in the protected education bubble. A bubble that creates the malaise of an anti depression drug, where the ups and downs are not great changes. They are protected by tenure, law, lobbies, unions and associations. The trials and tribulations of life are avoided as much as possible. Their view of life is distorted by the artificial environment they have created for themselves.

They believe school should be constant joy and fun for children. They think flowers should be blooming and birds singing all the while, always spring and summer, never fall and winter. They want this for the children because they want it for themselves. They want a life of antidepressants, where nothing bad happens.

They even openly drug children for this purpose. Life is not that way. It never will be for the masses. And if it becomes so, it will only bring the sadness of mindless existence, avoiding life’s challenges.

The idea educators have the best interests of the children in mind is ludicrous! That they wouldn’t do anything to hurt the children is preposterous. As individuals some may have a heart. However, even many of those will conveniently forget it when the advancement of their own livelihood is it stake. The education industry is a selfish collective when it comes to bringing money into their sphere of influence. When money can be brought into their gravitational pull, educators are quite willing to become blind to values, ethics and integrity and let arrogance and hypocrisy rein.


6

Nutrition In Schools

The best example of how educators are willing to sacrifice students and education is in regard to nutrition. They knew bringing the soda, potato chips, corn chips and candy into the schools was wrong and wrong for the children. They knew having vending machines in the halls and cafeterias was contrary to the proper lifestyle for children.

Then why did this happen on such a grand scale? Why did those machines invade the classroom environments, standing guard along the walls in halls and cafeterias?

Because there was money in it for educators and the education industry! If they brought money in from other sources, they could divert more of the flow of money to their own pockets. Now that obesity is a major medical calamity in our country, educators have sheepishly slipped to the other side.

The money they made selling out the children was huge. It did not bother their conscience enough not to do it. In fact they had little problem selfishly selling out the children and parents to divert more money for their own greedy wants.

I hear them lauding they are using whole grains in their pizza dough and breads. They say it is better. They point out progress being made. They constantly point to progress being made. They use statistics that show progress and avoid statistics that do not. Getting better, making progress doesn’t mean success. Especially when that progress being made is even questionable. Still, progress does not mean success.

They would make it seem their negligence was just the failure to incorporate whole grains into their diet. They allowed vendors to enter the public school campuses with sugars, fats, trans-fats, salts and preservatives in mass quantities practically poisoning the students. It was for the money.

But you say, “Educators wouldn’t lie about these things. That would be selling out the children.” Nurturing The Drug Culture

They have sold out our children numerous times before, and as previously stated one of the most obvious is the nutrition they have provided in schools. Another even more serious is they have sold the children out to drugs.

They present a visibly strong façade in opposition to drugs. They position their drug free zone signs around schools like a protecting fortress. One wonders is that wall to keep the drug dealers out, or protect the ones within. This is another education program for show and no real substance. It puts all the blame for drugs outside their purview, when they are actually dealing them within.

Inside their walls, they are willing to put kids on drugs at the drop of a hat. They have made it acceptable to actually wean children on drugs. For behavior problems and concentration problems they are willing to drug kids into submission for the convenience of educators, instead of teaching discipline and determination.

Those same sugars and other chemicals they are fed because of the greed of the education system, many of these students are revved up, their bodies exploding with energy, then crashing. These sugars create the symptoms of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) for which students are diagnosed out of control and then put on drugs like Ridalin.


7

These are not benign drugs. These are drugs that can have disastrous affects on children in both the long and short term. They can cause dependence and hallucinations. Some have become a drug of choice for adults and children are even used as date rape drugs. Some cause depression and notions of suicide.

When I first got on the school board I received an anonymous phone call from an employee of another district. She told me parents were agreeing to their kids being put on Ridalin. They collected $1000.00 a month from SSI and then would sell the drug on the street. It expanded the inducement for putting children on Ridalin and it had nothing to do with the good of the child. In fact it created an environment detrimental to the child’s health. I’m not sure that most places where Ridalin is used aren’t detrimental to the child’s health.

Look back! Be honest! Tell me every one of you wouldn’t have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) when you were a child. For active energetic children to be caged up in school all day is an exercise in pure concentration and discipline for them. Many times during the day they fail, just as we failed.

I remember being in Chemistry Class or History Class with two of my favorite and most respected teachers. I found them very interesting. Still, many times toward the end of class, I could not stand to have one more piece of information crammed into my head. I just couldn’t do it. So I shut down and stared out the window, looking at nature to relieve the pressure on my brain and sooth my soul.

I mean it, I couldn’t take any more. I know they caught me a number of times during those spells. Perhaps every time, because I dove outside those windows so vigorously and unabashedly, perhaps they could not help but see.

I liked them very much and respected them even more. I didn’t want to hurt their feelings. But I needed to escape or I would go crazy.

I found the discipline in myself. I had tasks that had to be done. I concentrated even when it was painful. That is what strength and discipline are about. It must be nurtured, built and formed in the character of the individual. It should not be drugged into a child.

The education industry has failed students and parents in practically every way these days. While educators like to blame parents, educators are much to blame why many of today’s parents are so lame. Because they taught them in this slipshod way!

Drugs are being used for convenience to control, not to elicit proper conduct of children.

What is the connection with 52% of the Horseheads School district healthcare budget going to pharmaceuticals, double the national average at the high end of the range, as determined by a healthcare consultant? Certainly one cause of high percentage of pharmaceutical costs is district educators purchasing the more expensive brand name drugs.

Still, one must ask, are educators in the district over consuming drugs? Are educators in the district drug dependent? Are they more prone to pop a pill without hesitation, looking for solutions to all of their mental and physical problems in a pill? Are capsules, caplets and chemicals the course they see to make them more capable? What is the thinking here? If so, isn’t this weak and won’t it be the example they pass on to the children? Amongst the war on drugs, it seems our children are being taught a dependence on prescribed drugs?

When my mom died, I found myself dozing off at my computer during the day. Much of my work of writing involved editing and checking the indexes and tables of


8

contents, scrolling through the pages on the computer to make sure headings and chapter numbers were on the right pages. This was very hypnotic and stupefying.

I listened to some of the commercials on television about the symptoms of depression. I didn’t feel depressed, though I did feel very sad. Still, I was moving forward with life, working on personal projects. Perhaps I was not as exuberant as in the past, but still trudged forward.

Though I never believed in councilors, I contacted my employee EAP and made an appointment. I almost canceled it before I went. I did go. The councilor came to the same conclusion as I had. I was not depressed. I was just going through the normal ritual of sadness. The dozing in front of the computer at work he diagnosed as boredom.

I myself should have seen that. I had moved the job forward in my first years to a point where I was getting it under control. I was transitioning from constant movement just to keep on schedule, to a slower pace of more editing and scrolling, practically self-hypnotizing.

When I was ready to leave the councilor’s office he added, “I can write a prescript for one of these drugs if you want it.”

I was both amazed and appalled. I agreed with him, I wasn’t depressed, just feeling sad. It was the mourning process. I wasn’t going to take a drug I didn’t need. When I heard from a friend who had, and she revealed how these drugs put you in a lethargic state, no ups or downs, but no desire for anything more either, I realized, I had dodged a bullet.

I brought dumbbells to work to get my blood flowing and my heartbeat racing during the day. I did many things to turn the tide. It is an uphill battle that sometimes I lose. I was never meant to sit in front of a computer all day. But that is another story.

Is this where our educators are? Healthcare is so easy and cheap for them to get, are they accepting every drug offered to help them with their mental and physical ailments? Many of their behaviors reveal them as this weak. If so, they cannot help but bring this weakness with them, exemplify this behavior to those around them; their students.

Clearly, the signs surrounding schools saying drug free zone or more a wish that reality. In face the drug culture in our school is affected more by being a “free drug zone”, that it is a “drug free zone”. Drugs are a major part of the education industry culture, and our local school culture. A Trend; Not An Aberration

These selfish and self-serving behaviors of educators in the education industry are more of a trend than an aberration as they would like you to believe. They are not focused on educational success of students, but the power and profit behaviors can bring to them personally and professionally. Consolidating their profit and power, their political agenda strengthens their profession, their unions and associations.

Is it too far out to think educators would bring in programs that fail to educate? I believe there has been much evidence this is the case at our local level as well as state and national levels. The disguise of educating is more important than educating. Making it look like the task is being done is much more important than actually doing it. This point will be made more clearly throughout this book. It will be made particularly listening to their own words; the words of Cary Nelson President of the American College Professors Association and George Weaver, President of the NEA.


9

Educators have become so expert at putting up and maintaining the front, the façade, they have lost the ability to actually do; achieve. The fact they became so invested in the facades, the fake fronts first, shows where their priorities are and where they stand. That they have been doing this for so long they have actually forgotten how to achieve says even more about them.

Would they use obesity and drug dependence to train people to be more dependent on them for their own profit and power? I guess if they would fail to educate purposely to that end, turning our children into obese druggies would not be beyond the realm of possibility. With such a lack of confidence and low self-esteem, it would certainly put the perceived peasant population at their mercy.

Their arrogance and hypocrisy have gotten out of control. They are in a state of extreme fear that society will discover how inept and incompetent they have become. That it has not only spread to lunches in schools and drugging children to control them, but the disciplines, the subjects have been subverted for the same reason.

Most of the subversion of the ethics in education has taken place for one major reason, the almighty dollar. Yes educator’s main goal is increasing their own profit and power. Profit and power becomes a vicious cycle for them. More profit means more power means more profit and so on and so on and so on. Unions, Yes or No

While I see the need for unions, I also see where the present day system of labor organizations has gone astray. Unions are necessary to keep unscrupulous and greedy corporate heads in line. However, union management has become so similar to the corporate management it is difficult to tell the difference.

Like corporate management, union management has become selfish and greedy, running their organization for the benefit of leadership and not that of the majority of their members. They make decisions on what is best for them, not the organization (public education). This is shortsightedness is not good for the long term health of the organizations they run.

Union management runs their organization to protect the poor workers, those in trouble, constantly facing judgment or discipline. They protect the mediocre and inept, spending most of their time protecting the problem people.

They seldom have to step forward to protect those with the good work ethic, dependable and responsible. They sacrifice the well being of the majority for a minority, many of whom don’t deserve defending.

Like company leadership, union leadership asks those that do to do more, those that sacrifice, to sacrifice more and those that do not, to do nothing. Very much like the welfare system in our country.

Education is one of the areas unions have done the worst damage. They trample down the individualism, inventiveness and integrity that has made the American Democratic Republic a model for the world.

Education and government unions are among the largest in the country, further spreading mediocrity where it has long been well practiced. The NEA (National Education Association) 2.7 million members and AFT (American Federation of Teachers) 1.3 million members total 4 million members. In 1995, the NEA (National Education Association) had


10

2.2 million members with a $185 million budget and AFT (American Federation of Teachers) 885,000 members with a $78 million budget, both unions totaling about 3.1 million members. This is a membership growth of over one third, or 34% in twelve years.

These figures do not include superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal or other education administrator associations and unions of which there are many. Added to these two teachers unions, which are among the largest in the country, perhaps the world, you are talking about a massive amount of power.

As previously stated the union’s power is used in a selfish way, particularly the education unions. Education unions and associations are promoting their personal and professional profit, power and political programs. Education of the children, creating independent and critical thinkers, is in conflict with their agenda of political power. They prefer to indoctrinate neediness and dependence.

Uneducated, overweight and drug dependent citizens fit the agenda of the education industry and point out why they have made the bad decisions they have. People over fed, drugged and/or propagandized into inaction, selling their freedoms for an empty life of being controlled.

It appears education industry leaders are attempting to introduce the signature malaise of unionism and socialism into our education and even government systems, mediocrity and less. Teacher Certification and Supposed Education Enhancement

Education Industry Unions and their lobbyists, along with government officials in NY State have used certification to keep the bar for teacher qualifications low. That certification supports the indoctrination of educators into the industry agenda of strengthening professional loyalties rather than dedication to the education of the children. Mediocre education and less is the result.

Certification merely consolidates the teacher’s union’s power. It allows them to set the rules for who gets in and who doesn’t. It should be industry standard that anyone graduating from an accredited college or university with a teaching degree is qualified to teach in public schools. How is it possible they are not?

Because the education industry has watered down the college education of teachers as they have the certification of teachers and their lauded masters degree with indoctrination instead of education. This is all designed to control the low caliber of teachers and assure those that would show them up have little or no chance of entering the ivy covered walls of academe.

They systematically keep out people that may have much stronger education, backgrounds, credentials and experience, lacking the peacock’s plumage of certification and the education industries contrived Masters Degree saturated with indoctrination in educanese (education double talk) and education myth and legend. The bar is lowered and the stage is set so that lowered bar is protected from not only capable people from outside the system, but dynamic and exceptional people from outside the education industries massive ghetto of mediocrity.

Yes, the system of certifying teachers in New York State and others may well have been for the purpose of making sure high quality teachers were in the public education system. However, it has ended up doing the opposite, making sure lazy, substandard teachers


11

are protected. They are protected from even being embarrassed by better, more productive teachers that might come from different backgrounds than the indoctrination of the teacher mills. This sets the bar for educators low. The standard sinks lower and lower the longer these systems are in place for their protection. Follow the Trends

They fear the hall marks of America, rugged individualism, dynamism and inventiveness which threatens them and will do all they can to crush the individual spirit to build a lethargic collective which benefits their wants.

Follow the trends of incidents at the local level. Notice how case studies from the Horseheads School District show behaviors that follow the philosophies of the education industry powers at the national level. Their goals are selfish and pervasive, from top to bottom and bottom to top.

This is just one small area, district and community. It serves the education industry to the disservice of the children and the community. The Bottom Line

It must be recognized that education is big business in this country. Primary, secondary, adult, under graduate and graduate education is not just big business in this country, but world wide. Providing education generates money. However it not only generates power through money, but also generates money through the manipulation and distribution of ideas.

To think that educators are motivated by altruism is a tremendous mistake. When you graduated from school, how many of your classmates said they were becoming teachers because of their desire to teach children, and had concerns about the future of the country. You probably remember them saying they were inspired by decent pay and summers and holidays off. Far too many educators are motivated by the same things as other big business and large industries. These are selfish motivations of profit and power.

However, most educational institutions are nonprofit institutions. They do not seek institutional profit. Their institutions do seek power along with personal power. However, educators are obsessed with individual profit and power, and an elevated place in society.

Educational institutions are not interested in effectiveness or efficiency, or even success. Because, like government the education industry thrives through failure! By failing, they get more money, because their role is seen as essential to the success of children. People are willing to throw money at them in hopes a miracle will occur and success will result.

When the education industry expands and those within are endowed with greater profit and power and even credibility for failing, what motivation is there for success in teaching our children or adults.

Make no mistake, expansion of personal and professional profit, power, position and place in society is the primary motivation of the education industry. As silent sheep, educators sign on to this agenda and it is rightly so they share the image.


12

CHAPTER 2. THE POWER OF, OR THE POWER IN EDUCATION

During the Block (Intensive) Scheduling marketing presentations, Carolyn Clack, Phd. Librarian and Judy McInerny, President of the local teacher’s union came up to me during the final meeting. They chided, “You are listening to the wrong people!”

I replied, “I’m only hearing what you are saying, and it is your words making me doubt the program.”

They asked, “Have you been to all the meetings?” I told them, “I wasn’t sure if I had.” They gave me the horse laugh, turned dismissively and walked away. I found out later, there had been four review meetings on intensive scheduling and I

had been to all four. They used my uncertainty as a reason to dismiss me, an often used tactic. In all those meetings I saw no data that said the system worked. I saw a selective use of data. They used the first year of data from a district that had implemented such a program. They did not use the second year of data that was available. I think because it did not support their case.

This is a theme that continues till this day. It wasn’t what any one else said. It was educators own words, from their own mouths that caused me to doubt. From teachers to professors, board presidents to district superintendents, local union presidents to national, education leaders at all levels.

Disillusioned working in industry, when I was lucky enough to land a job at Cornell University thinking I was moving on to Camelot. After all, with a top graduate school of Business Management and a long standing elite school of Labor Relations, both highly touted, I was surely going to be at the Olympus of Leadership and Management. Now I would see how leadership was carried out efficiently, effectively, with honestly and integrity.

Besides, I was already an advocate of education and the educator. Good teachers I had in high school had swayed me greatly. I had great admiration for them. The really bad professors I had in college had not tainted my opinion of education. I just assumed a military college, which all attendees thought to be somewhat corrupt, was the exception to the rule.

I will not dwell too long on my experience at Cornell. It was wonderful, but not for the reasons I thought. It was another experience of life that gave me important guidance. It made me more aware of the truth and how truth is often abused and obscured.

After my time in the maintenance arm of Cornell’s Department of Residence Life, I was offered a temporary position in the School of Human Ecology, the academic portion, I think because of my sensitivity to the employees. I was disillusioned working it residence life.

CLASP (Community Learning and Service Partnership) was a program our department took advantage of to give educational opportunities to custodians and maintenance people on our staff. I was to help the CLASP (Community Learning and Service Partnership) package their program for industry, to bring literacy programs to industrial workers in factories.


13

Here is where the incidents occurred to begin my questioning of education. With some initial spade work done, I began probing in my local school district for a place to begin a pilot project. I went to the local SCT BOCES where literacy programs might exist.

I found the head of such a program, described that CLASP used knowledgeable people in a community, whether the actual community or large business to help tutor people in need of various kinds of literacy whether English, reading mathematics or more. Her initial response to me was telling.

She said, “You are taking away my business!” I tried to explain, we were offering free resources to make her and her program more

successful. We would be there to help with resources and not to take away work. We weren’t there to usurp, but only help her to achieve greater success. She could not see it any other way that we were infringing upon her business.

Knowing I was offering something positive, I went over her head in the BOCES, to her supervisor. I received the same response. There was no desire for free help, apparently none for greater success.

When I later discovered the history of the BOCES Program, I understood. Excellent vocational programs had been systematically dismantled. Students once in demand to enter local industries had curriculums changed so their education had little meaning. BOCES programs were changed to handle problem children rather than teach functional trades to students. A successful vocational program was dismantled, changed into a program that did not create skilled adults, with great access to the job market.

Then I began to think, it fit the education industry agenda of making children and adults dependent upon them. Success was a reduction in business. If students, children or adults learned important subjects they were taught, they would no longer be dependent on educators or the education system. This meant less expansion of the education industry.

But, it couldn’t be? Teachers and educators would still prefer success even if it did shrink their pool of perspectives. The student was most important I told myself. “Education was for the success of the student?” I asked myself?

Then about halfway through the year of the temporary grant to develop this program, I had a meeting with the professor who was supervising me in this endeavor. It seemed I would present ideas at meetings she was impressed with. I would develop them, put them on paper and come back only to find her not so enthusiastic.

This particular day, the last meeting just before the Christmas Holiday, she confided in me. She revealed, “I’m not sure I want you to succeed on this project!”

The shocked look on my face must have displayed my surprise. I sat silent to hear if she would go on.

She further revealed, “If we are successful, I will lose power over this program.” Between the lady at the SCT BOCES suggesting we were taking away her business,

and the good professor, whom I admired, fearing losing her power, I began to see a thread of consistency. While I admired her honesty to let me know, I was really concerned she would wish me failure.

I had sensed something wrong with her enthusiasm about ideas when first presented and dissatisfaction after I developed them further. I would never get specific direction, but we would fish around, time running out.


14

I mentioned to her if we succeeded, her power would be greatly enhanced. Her program would be helping people in a much broader venue. Her inspiration might be helping thousands of people with education problems instead of a hundred or so a year.

“But I will not have control over how it is applied,” she lamented. She too was refusing help, to help her help others. I began to see, helping others was

not necessarily the purpose of their programs, hers and BOCES. The purpose was more oriented toward securing their position, profit and power. Securing their superior position in society overall by protecting the closed society of education seemed to be their motivation.

This was the beginning of my suspicions about the motivations of the academic community. As I saw more behaviors confirming my suspicions I became even more disappointed in education than I was in industry leadership.

That Christmas my mind was racing, trying to frame concepts that would entice her toward great success rather than fearing the loss of power. I came up with what I felt were dynamic ideas. I never was able to sell them to her, but I also could never pry the direction she wanted me to go out of her. I floundered, wallowing in a sea of indecision, no compass toward positive results.

The job I thought would be exciting and a great success that would help me to spring board to bigger and better things was going no where. I didn’t even understand the results she wanted until with only a few months left on the grant, she handed the task to her assistant.

All the borrowed readings and lifted exercises for her literacy course were to be compiled into one book. It took me awhile to realize she never really wanted to transfer her literacy process to industry. She wanted to use the grant money to formalize the text book for her course. She really didn’t need me for that.

I was upset with my failure for a long time. It was my time, my effort, so I shouldered the blame for the collapse. I felt I was a disaster, my fault little was accomplished in this project. Personally, it all fell on my shoulders when I walked away from this project feeling a failure.

It took me many months to analyze the situation correctly and come to grips. I was sabotaged! While the professor had the courage to tell me of her concerns of losing power, she didn’t have the courage to outright tell me I was on the wrong track for what she wanted. She would try to gently guide me, but in my own vision I saw great benefits from the direction I was heading and only moved off course in small increments. In six months it didn’t amount to very much.

Then I related this to the recycling program I initiated while in residence life. There too leadership limited success to avoid work and accountability. They too probably saw success of the program as a loss of power.

I realized at this time my weakness and my greatest strength were one and the same. When I was given a task, I took it on to make it work. I saw the benefits success would bring, and I would do all I could to make the project a success.

Initially in my naiveté I didn’t see these projects weren’t given to me to make them work. They were handed to me so leadership could say they were addressing the problem, whether they really did or not was not their concern. In fact, I think they preferred not to rock the boat. They were perfectly satisfied with maintaining the status quo. It was safer for them that way, since they never knew what change could bring. If it was for the better, it might challenge their power.


15

Mr. Robert Odum, a former local union president in a neighboring Elmira School

district excoriated me in a letter to the editor in 1996. He stated how my letters made him sick to his stomach while he was eating breakfast.

He wasn’t specific about what I said in particular about education that put him in such a state of ill health. Just that it was misinformation and lies that I spewed. I guess it was just my expression of concerns about education and the negatives I saw.

Mr. Odum wrote, “He would not waste his time debating,” which appears to be an educational trend.

I replied in my October 23, 1996 letter in the Star-Gazette, “If Mr. Odum has truth exclusively on his side, he should not fear debate. Please expose my errors and my untruths,” I went on, “And I will apologize publicly. I wish to learn the truth, so difficult to decipher among selfish agendas.”

When I answered his letter, I let him know I was seeking the truth. I was very much interested in exposing it. If he showed me where I was wrong I would gladly give him a public apology. I would write a letter pointing out to the people where I was wrong and I would apologize to educators.

Help to search for and uncover the truth never came from him. It never came from anyone in education. The superintendents, board members, administrators, librarians, union presidents and teachers, most telling me I was wrong, never showed me why or where I was wrong. I was attacked generally as being wrong, with no specifics addressed. I was just supposed to take their word for it. Unfortunately they never showed me their word could be trusted. In fact, they showed me the opposite.

From the BOCES administrator who did not want help from the Cornell CLASP Program because, “It would take away her business,” to my friend the professor who, wasn’t sure she wanted me to succeed in the project I was doing for her because, “She might lose the power over it,” their own words gave me the answers.

Similarly Douglas Martin, Elmira Teachers Association President and Raymond Bryant, Superintendent epitomize union and educator supported mediocrity in their September 18th and 19th, 2007 letters, extolling (54%) seven of thirteen Elmira schools are not on the under performing schools list. Banners hailing rapidly improving or high performing schools are facades, revealing the fatal education industry philosophy for show over substance. Their own words show strong support of educational mediocrity.

From local teacher union presidents Robert Odums, Douglas Martin, Judy McInerny and Cathy Keeler, we see the same selfish attitudes their words indicating the same attitude as the education industry. School board presidents’ words reveal similar mediocrity. Superintendents like Reester, Congon, Cuppola, Trombley, Staples, Sherwood and Bryant parrot the same old tunes, their own words exposing their acceptance of educational mediocrity.

Go to the top, Cary Nelson President of the American College Professor’s Association points out how they self police allowing an incompetent history professor to teach for twenty years, or finding a place for staff who continually fail. Or President Weaver of the National Education Association pushing input over output to avoid accountability for poor results. They are all singing the same song of accepted incompetence, ineffectiveness and inefficiency. They sing the song of selfish, arrogance and mediocrity and defend it.


16

There is much power in education. Educators obsessed with power must bring more money into the education industry to maintain and spread their power. This does not mean education for our children will improve. In fact this obsessive quest for educator’s power and profit drains honesty and integrity that is sorely necessary from education and educators. It is purposely geared toward failing to educate the children so they will continue to be customers and consumers of the education industry in the future.

Without integrity to guide content and quality of delivery, our public education, even private higher education will continue to suffer and degrade. The chances for our wonderful Democratic Republic to survive will diminish. That would be to the detriment of mankind and the human condition, let alone our own country.

CHAPTER 3 – THE FOUR C’S OF THE EDUCATION INDUSTRY Conduct & Confidentiality: A Double Edged Sword

Often it seems the school board system in general, has become a sound proof

room, where little sound enters and little escapes. Such methods ring the death knell for debate and threaten the tools of a democratic process.

When I was voted to the Horseheads School Board in 1997, the first thing I participated in was a meeting about conduct and confidentiality. The purpose was to teach me the ground rules. This was a wonderful learning experience.

Conducted by the district legal counsel and superintendent, and attended by myself and one other new member, I learned some legalities of school board membership. Rules of proper conduct were espoused. A couple of members of neighboring school boards, past and present, were set forth as examples of improper behavior. Sylvia Huber and Mary Reynolds had written letters to the editor about education. I called them to voice support for their ideas. So, they were people with whom I had conversations. What was presented as improper, I saw as independent.

That very evening, Steven Buckholtz of the Star-Gazette called to question me about an issue. I told him, "I can't answer that right now. I have to think about this whole conduct and confidentiality business before I say anything." I came away from that meeting frightened and very uncertain about what I could or could not say.

Steve, a person I respected greatly for his integrity, questioned me, "You're not going to become another of these people who gets on the board and is never heard from again; are you?"

I answered, "No, but I do have to sort this out. There are issues of liability and misconduct to which I must pay attention."

The presentation was frightening. I will admit I was scared. Confidentiality was a legal issue, which could bring severe penalties against me.

It took much thought, but I did sort things out. I realized if I just used common sense and applied my vision of integrity I should be okay.

Then I began to question the presentation of conduct and confidentiality. Though I believe good conduct and obeying rules of confidentiality are extremely important, I also saw room for wrong doing under this apparently righteous banner.


17

Speaking out on issues could breech some views of both proper conduct and confidentiality. Written policies support this.

One such policy in the Joint Code of Conduct For School Boards and Superintendents states, "Act as part of an educational team with mutual respect and regard for each other's respective responsibilities and duties, recognizing the strength of a school board is acting as a board, not as individuals."

The importance of teamwork cannot be refuted. However, individuality implied as disrespect and misconduct could easily frighten people away from standing their ground.

When the institutional view says individuality is wrong, what can change the direction of the majority when it has veered off course? When individual action is characterized as poor conduct, it is difficult to stand alone.

Under these conditions codes of conduct and confidentiality then become codes of

silence. If integrity takes a back seat in an environment, such codes can enforce long existing processes of propagandizing, indoctrination and intimidation. It can be reinforced by those previously indoctrinated into status quo thinking.

With debate silenced and the range of input squeezed down, the view is narrowed. It makes politics a major player and gives integrity a minor role in governing our schools. Under these conditions a school board, a school district or an entire educational system could easily become stagnant, warped and misguided in its' thinking. Consensus: Agreement or Assimilation

I have often heard people from the community complain as did Steven Buckholtz

accuse me, "Joe was so outspoken before he went on the board, now he is just like the rest." They ask, "How can they vote unanimously on everything?"

As a new member of the school board, I was sent to a seminar in Albany for the orientation of new school board members. It was put on by the New York State School Board Association. Many classes were made available on many subjects that might be of interest to new school board members.

However, the tone of most of the keynote addresses rang with a familiar tone. The message of consensus was hammered home. One can find little to argue about consensus when looked at the point of view of establishing agreement. It certainly is better if all involved find honest agreement in their decisions.

Consensus from one perspective could be looked at as the result of compromise, which is often necessary to move an organization.

However, this presentation of consensus was a little different. It strongly implied that to go to the public without consensus was somehow disloyal to fellow board members. It was pictured as undermining the position and power of the board.

The united front when going to the public was stressed. Anything less than a united front was characterized as undermining the ability of the board to succeed in the goals that were set.

I would say this picture of consensus implied that a lack of consensus was a lack of civility by those or that person who stood in the way of consensus.

When returning to the board, the pushing of consensus was presented along much the same lines. Stories of boards out of control were related through discussion and an


18

article passed out. It further implied that failure to have consensus could lead to extremes in incivility. The one article I remember, the incivility ended in the suicide of the superintendent.

This characterization of incivility left me concerned. It warned disagreement could not occur in a civil way. It suggested if agreement was not achieved, it could only break out into hostilities.

I would learn incivility could be used as a weapon by the consensus seekers. When disagreement was pushed, and not consummated in consensus, incivility often became the tool of the majority. Consensus, To Limit Debate

Used ideally, consensus can bring a decision to the best possible conclusion. Used

improperly it covers dissenting ideas with layers of silence, far more effective than feet of concrete.

As improperly used rules of conduct and confidentiality can limit debate in our public school governance, so can the process of consensus. It forces people to give up their voice for a larger voice, often nothing like their own.

In September of '97, when I went to a seminar for new board members, I was struck by the philosophy of consensus delivered. Presenting a united board front, the community is viewed as an enemy.

Disagreement could take place, but once decided upon; proper conduct dictated complete agreement on an issue. The board personality enforced this definition. Consensus meant showing no opposition. If the agreed upon process were not working, it would not be proper to bring that out. One was to support the decision implicitly. Such a consensus process is a powerful tool to limit ideas, debate and questioning.

An issue under discussion could be halted if thought to be over debated. These unwritten rules of consensus could erase an idea from the agenda and banish it from further appearances.

Wrap consensus in self-serving concepts of conduct and confidentiality and the flow of ideas can be controlled. Turning the faucet on more ideas might be allowed. Squeeze it down and unwanted input would be constricted. Committees, even where community participation is allowed could be manipulated to a result. Consensus is supposed to be an agreement to obtain good solutions that all participating can accept, not a blood oath of silence. Consensus, Silencing Ideas

When consensus is utilized to rule the committee process, the information obtained

can be neutralized till it is merely a defender of the status quo. For instance the Community Survey Committee in 1997, made up of dedicated

community members, may be such an example. All worked diligently to bring the work to a positive conclusion. Where did we go wrong?

The equation used was DF2. DF2 means "Designed For Failure". Weaknesses installed in a system kept the project from reaching anywhere near its potential.

Why do I make this determination? Due to this process, great effort and energy


19

was dissipated into questionable results. The first error we made was consensus. We said we could not report until we all

agreed to what and how we would report. By agreeing to consensus, we agreed in theory to a diluted report at the last meeting. The neutralized version that came out said nothing of importance. It became a marketing effort to hid weaknesses rather than research into the weaknesses of the district.

This nullified the information found in the study. There were high and low points worthy of hearing. Sure, they may not all have been represented by masses of people. Yet, these concerns would never see the light of day.

An issue of intimidation of people afraid to speak was mentioned by only 8 respondents. This was only a little over 1%. Events of '98, which included the “Regents grade changing issue”, suggested this might be a legitimate area of concern.

We bulldozed the landscape until there were no distinguishing landmarks on which to take a bearing. We diminished the voices of the public till they were mere whispers in the distance.

Coming away from committee work with one voice neutralizes many ideas. It takes an opportunity for great discussion and interaction and it silences. It nurtures mediocrity and the status quo.

Apparently this time consuming survey was not significant enough for the board to discuss. After its presentation at the board meeting, not another word was said about it by the board.

How do we deal with this in the future? We do not ask for consensus. We encourage the minority view and presentation to answer and even challenge the majority view. The basis of education is debate.

Consensus is used to construct a false face to confuse and confound the community. It dawns the mask of wisdom to cover unadulterated arrogance when looking in the mirror. Conduct, Confidentiality and Consensus To Control

Rules of conduct and confidentiality are essential to setting standards of proper

behavior for board members. They can be a limited control that guides new and old members alike in dealing decently with each other.

However, as previously stated, issues of conduct and confidentiality can weigh heavily on individuals. People will certainly be judged on them. They may even face legal ramifications. The thought of such consequences hanging over ones head could be quite frightening.

Manipulating those rules to intimidate rather than guide, could easily bring more dictatorial control to a board organization. Fear of accusations of misconduct or breaches of confidentiality could tend to quiet the voice of an individual standing on uncertain ground.

In the same vain, consensus that appears to be a requirement rather that a goal to strive for can also take on the character of intimidation. If the standard of judgment for someone not agreeing to, or standing in the way of consensus is preordained, consensus could easily become a tool of intimidation.

If conduct, confidentiality and consensus are used as such tools, much power is wielded with their use. Through these uses of conduct, confidentiality and consensus, the lines of communication can be manipulated.


20

They could conceivably be turned into weapons that not only control what is communicated, but they could control the actions of board members.

Withdrawal of acceptance and approval could in itself cast that controlling influence on a dissenting board member. If the guidelines laid out from day one characterize consensus as loyalty and teamwork with regard to the board, anyone standing in the way of consensus is labeled disloyal and a non-team player, hurting the children.

These are powerful weapons at this level when we consider most people have a strong desire to be liked and accepted. Begin to introduce a little venom into these weapons and aim them against people trying to make differing opinions heard and try to imagine the feeling of intimidation they will be under.

It will be a controlling force that few but the strongest and most experienced will give in to. Deep inside we hope that no one has to be experienced in the area of receiving intimidation. In such an environment, assimilation might be expected. Confidentiality Used To Defame

Confidentiality is certainly important to the functioning of many aspects of a school board. With regard to personnel issues and negotiations it is important that confidentiality be strictly observed.

However, if confidentiality is used by boards to give them the power to defame and slander people behind closed doors such actions do not deserve confidentiality. If such defamation is used to influence board members in desired directions, vilifying individuals to promote ones own position, it is essential such actions not be protected under such rules of confidentiality.

When the denigration takes on a legitimized and heralded marketing approach, actions to confront take on greater urgency. Defamation pounded home is a serious action. When the venality of some marketing techniques is employed against people's reputations for the sake of winning, such behavior must be fought. Constant negative comments slipped in to conversations in order to influence against people under the blanket of confidentiality, should not be protected. I cannot believe legally the rules of confidentiality would protect such behavior. Warped Confidentiality Contaminates Communication

Such actions show a serious deficit of leadership. Relying on gossip, hearsay and innuendo instead of fact will build a weak school district and twisted educational examples. It allows for despots with large egos to behave poorly.

It is the responsibility of board members to sound the alarm if rules of confidentiality have become so warped. If leadership has no fear characterizing the public and individuals in extremely negative terms, such methods will be used when effective. If no one stands in the way of character assassination, it becomes fact in the stagnant air behind the closed doors of confidentiality.

Leadership unafraid to wrongly attack such individuals behind closed doors can plant the seeds to attack those disagreeing, destroying their credibility. Decisions are clearly influenced when people have no opportunity to defend themselves.

We must question the motivation of leadership when confidentiality is used in this


21

way. Where is this leadership going to take us? These are not methods that should be acceptable in our society, let alone the running of our public schools.

If a superintendent cannot remain objective in such circumstances, it is up to the board to hold the reigns of leadership and implement the necessary objectivity. Superintendents should act accordingly if boards fail to remain objective. Leadership should jump to the defense of victims, showing those actions will not be tolerated.

This is not micro management. It is assuming responsibility and teaching leadership in the broadest sense. If levels of leadership are falling short, it is up to others to set standards of behavior and accomplishment.

If the board fails to take action, then it has chosen to condone. If that support is aided by misuse of the rules of confidentiality, it is not only the right of individuals to challenge those rules, it is their duty to question those actions outside the shadows of confidentiality if need be.

If I had broken those rules, which I never believed I had, the "systemic deaf ear" I have so often attributed to the board, left me no choice. With this same "systemic deaf ear" leadership has forced others, characterized as villainous, to side step the chain of command as occurred in the Regents grade changing..

Inherent deafness; continually deleting what leadership does not want to hear, leaves no choice. People who care must by-pass the barrier that is leadership. Leadership has asked for; no, forced such actions! When the lines of communication are exploited and subverted by leadership, people must find new lines along which to communicate.

In regard to legal counsel's judgments about other's motivations and state of mind, I believe they step over the bounds, ability and responsibility. Those judgments seem designed to cast doubt and suspicion upon those people. One could make their own judgment that this is the purpose of such declarations. That is to support the superintendent's actions rather than counsel objectively and legality to make sure those actions are morally and legally correct.

When counsel's stances heavily employ spin, the credibility of those positions must be questioned. When a history of such behavior is evident, one must wonder at the quality of counsel. If legal decisions are being made by the board on such counsel, one must ask how good are those decisions?

Instead of exercising discipline and an objective voice before the board, legal counsel tends to play to district leadership's major weakness. That is attacking people and personalities instead of problems and issues.

This intimidating style of leadership resorts to marketing and band aids to cover problems. Like cats scratching in a litter box to cover their mess, this mode moves to cover up instead of seeking permanent solutions. Marketing: Communication Manipulated

Manipulating those rules of conduct, confidentiality and consensus, the lines of

communication can be manipulated. A communication system can easily be confused with that of marketing. I believe the board and district have come to the threshold of communication and failed to step through. We always fell back into the marketing mode.

Marketing is controlled communication for the purpose of manipulating the


22

thoughts of people. It presents the positives to win the people over. It avoids the negatives, showing a rosy picture, so they do not see a bad or ugly side to what they have been told.

Being given less than honest information warrants mistrust! The marketing of the good and camouflaging of the bad will be listened to and accepted for a period; perhaps a long period. However, when the deception of marketing is discovered, trust will be seriously damaged. It will not be brought back by anything less than a history of honesty and integrity. It will not be brought back even by a well marketed plea. Sincerity is the only cure.

The organization including many of its members begins to market as leadership has done. When a new program, let's use intensive (block) scheduling as an example, is put in place, those responsible often market the results. The good is magnified. The bad is filtered out. We are given scenarios of warm and fuzzy stories. Data is often hidden. Hidden by not being presented, or hidden in an inundation of useless material that confounds and confuses; the bad is buried.

One administrator pronounced intensive scheduling a success based on the fact that so many schools were coming to them and asking questions. Intensive scheduling was presented to those inquiring schools as a success by this and similarly flimsy data.

Such an approach makes implementation the end product of a program. It is never evaluated to see if it is really effective. It is not known whether the results contribute to the education of children. It is just there. It relies on feelings, not facts; wishes, not wisdom.

The manipulation of communication is not only dishonest; it hides the weaknesses of the education programs and systems. When those weaknesses are not recognized, they cannot be fixed. Then we continue with a dishonest education system that is not for the children, but victimizes the children. Manipulating Individuals

Using the provided definitions of conduct, confidentiality and consensus, the path a

new board member takes can easily be controlled. Therefore votes on issues are controlled. Information is used in a case by case need to obtain the desired results. To

manipulate people not speak out as individuals, the following policy was given. One such policy in the Joint Code of Conduct For School Boards and

Superintendents states, "Act as part of an educational team with mutual respect and regard for each other's respective responsibilities and duties, recognizing the strength of a school board is acting as a board, not as individuals."

Strict interpretation of such policies lures people to be over cautious when expressing concerns about behavior of the school board. Essentially it makes the board a "Sound Proof Room."

A little over a year into my term, I wrote an article. I used the phrase "the board was a sound proof room." Under the guidelines they had set, I knew of no other way to break from the chains that had been placed upon my ability to communicate with the community.

A meeting was held to deal with only the issue of my sending the article to the local paper. It proceeded for over two hours. It was an experience I would not like to go through ever again. Yet, it was the experience of a lifetime. It gave me an insight into the thinking of this school board and perhaps many school boards in general.


23

It was an invaluable and enlightening experience that clearly showed the ground rules by which leadership was willing to conduct itself. Included with all the other things that occurred, another policy was handed out.

"Because all powers of the Board of Education lie in its action as a group, individual Board members exercise their authority over the district affairs only as they take action at a legal meeting of the board."

Since what is said at a meeting can be eliminated from the minutes, and curtailed by majority members, as recently happened, this policy clearly is talking about the "Yes" or "No" vote on issues.

This incident gave me the clearest view of the direction I had to take. The bias guidelines of fair play initially presented by the board were clearly abandoned when they felt threatened. In addition, this new confrontation had the opposite effect, freeing me of many of the false chains of duty with which they had bound me.

All the reading, renderings, presentations or discussions of policy would never have brought out the hypocrisy of behavior as did this incident. In essence the second policy suggested voting yes and no is the expression of your opinion, refuting the spin they had put on consensus. Bias board mentoring by the machinery in place, would never give a board member an understanding of either policy as did this confrontation.

Using one policy and the issues of conduct, confidentiality and consensus to manipulate a board member to the Board's to stress going along, then slipping them another policy saying the Yes or No vote was the true expression of the board member cause confusion. When the confusion the board caused pushed such a board member into serious actions, the attempt to further confuse, typifies inherent manipulation techniques.

The board manipulates members with intimidation, direct and indirect, rather than swaying them with good solid ideas. It leaves them stunned, wondering if the immature behavior of board members they were witnessing could possibly be real.

Like a con man on the streets of New York executing the shell game, the board’s execution of procedures was often a smooth bait and switch. Free thinking board members and the public are often left watching the pea, while numerous diversions are played out to take their attention away from the truth. Is Communication A Priority? (Case Study)

If communicating with all the people of this community is truly a priority, we took a

step backwards with this incident. We, as a board, misrepresented information given to the public. Such actions will nurture mistrust. There cannot be productive communication without trust.

When Mr. Rose read the comments about CAC (Community Advisory Committee), found in the newspaper, those statements were denied by board members. The rest of the board remained silent, supporting the denial.

The previous board meeting to that one, the statement was made, "sometimes dinosaurs have to die." Perhaps the statement is true. Maybe it wasn't as offensive as it was taken by Mr. Rose. Perhaps he did get out of hand. Still, we need to understand his frustration, especially in relation to our behavior.

Regardless of right or wrong on the CAC issue, this other issue must be judged on its own merit. The blame was put on the Star-Gazette and its reporting. If I remember the article


24

correctly, it was written by Mr. Buchholz. I think all who have encountered this young man have to admit, he has integrity. Still, no matter who wrote the article, that statement was made and that quotation was correct.

In this instance, we failed in the department of integrity. We must have the courage to look at our actions and analyze them. We passed misinformation, put the blame on others and condoned it.

I don't think it is difficult to understand how this could plant seeds of mistrust in the community. If communication and trust between us and the community are important, we must understand this. We cannot play fast and lose with the truth and expect to be trusted. Challenging Information and Debating

Actions speak louder than words. I would expect if I did present misinformation, someone from the board would challenge me and correct me. With that challenge there can be debate. We can save face for the board and the individuals involved by doing this. This can be done with courtesy and consideration for each other.

Then such an incident will be viewed as a mistake that action was taken to correct, rather than an attempt to deceive. We are all human. We all make errors. Mistakes will be forgiven by the community. If we all defend the errors deception will not be forgiven so easily.

I regret not doing this last week. In the future I will do the courtesy of questioning those things I think to be erroneous. I hope we all will do this for each other. We owe it to each other, the board and the community. Let's Assume Mistrust Does Exist

If mistrust for the board does exist in segments of the community, we must recognize how this mistrust might be translated. I hope now we can now see how it might exist.

People who have developed mistrust are not going to come before us to speak their minds. They will view it as a waste of time. They will feel it an exercise in futility, only bringing frustration upon themselves.

If they mistrust the board, that is the feeling that will rise to the surface immediately. Each item, agenda or program presented will be viewed first with mistrust.

Confrontation is one option to deal with that mistrust. Most people do not like confrontation. In fact, it is something most human beings avoid like the plague. Besides, we tend to view people who do confront in a negative light.

The odds that the people feeling negative toward board actions and ideas are going to come out and say it are pretty slim. That is why the information received at board meeting must not be the only source of information used for decision making. Understanding the "NO" Vote

This can help us to understand the NO votes on the budget. One of the easiest things to do in this atmosphere of mistrust is to vote NO. If a person mistrusts and does not believe they are being listened to, it is a logical decision to vote NO. If the mistrust has grown to a point in which there is no confidence in a particular body, for this person, the


25

only logical thing to do is vote NO. The superintendent brought up the point about putting this behind us to move ahead.

It is a nice theory and must be done. But, it can't be done in one sweeping motion of a few sentences. Again, actions speak louder than words.

For those who have been nurtured into a routine of mistrust, we must give them a reason to trust. They see it as stupidity for them to hand over trust so easily, just because someone says that is what we must do to move ahead. They mistrust what is meant by moving ahead.

They see it as sticking their necks out waiting to have their heads hacked off. They feel it has happened so many times before it is inevitable it will happen again. Why should they do this?

It must be more than words that will win back trust. It must be strong and disciplined actions that show integrity. It is a long and painful climb back to trust. In the view of those that have lost the ability to trust, it is a history that has destroyed trust.

Therefore, it is a history of trust that must bring it back. As I said, it will be a long and painful history. A hundred steps forward may win it back. Perhaps it will take two hundred. If we stick to the road of integrity, it will be won back. Even then we must realize, one misstep, one transgression and many right steps may bring the mistrust back. It can take years of absolute integrity to return the respect to the board that a few transgressions cause. The history in their minds takes time. To replace one perceived history with another will take time. It must be on our minds constantly. This is the task that is before us, if we really wish to gain the respect and trust of the entire community. Integrity Must Be an Essential Part of Our Leadership Strategy

If the pursuit of integrity is at the center of our goals and strategies, we will succeed. It can begin to bring trust to the board that is necessary to do our jobs and meeting our responsibilities. There can be no excellence of education without integrity.

Integrity must be present in every facet for education with integrity to exist. This can bring us to compete at the highest levels of education in the country and world, not merely the small pond of NYS. As leaders, we must set the tone in this effort.

Whether direct education, budgeting, policies, etc. fairness and honesty at the center will bring the best decisions. They will be decisions the community can trust. The bottom line isn't money. It is integrity. On a foundation of integrity, we can teach the children the most important lessons that will build a positive future for them.

Cutting The Community Throat; Silencing The Community Voice The CAC (Community Advisory Committee) was the last of almost a half dozen

committees in the Horseheads School District with a community voice not diluted beyond recognition. (The other committees: Computer, Budget, Advertising and Fundraising, Home Schooling, Shared Decision Committees and CORE)

With a long history of accomplishment, it was abolished the week before I became an official school board member in July 1997. Their years of work were honored with paper certificates and no explanations beyond "sometimes a dinosaur has to die."


26

Finding out why it was disbanded is like uncovering any information in the school district. Usually a standard run around is given. Seldom if ever is there an attempt to pass on objective information. So a person searching must always be analyzing for individualized interests and agendas when seeking answers.

Bias information is the rule, rather than the exception. Then one must take all this bias data and intent and try to formulate an answer.

One accusation for the demise of the committee was it was becoming political. Obviously board members were threatened by this. However, they never looked to themselves to see if they were the teachers of such political behavior. A board that seldom, if ever rose above the political was surprised that one of its minions was behaving politically. The board dealt in the political realm of gossip, rumor, innuendo, ego and personal agendas. Objectivity and common sense were extinct.

Could it be the boards own political posturing pushed some members of the CAC to engage in similar tactics? Members accustomed to accomplishment would have a difficult time with board efforts miring down their progress in the boards own political intrigue. Within the system of oppressive politics built by the board, it was only a matter of survival that members of the committee indulge in politics themselves. This entrance into politics did not end the committee. It only gave the excuse for ending it.

One high level administrator suggested a mistake brought about the committees demise. The CAC took on the issue of technology in the schools on its own. He admitted, they did a pretty good job and much of the long term plan in place today is theirs.

However, educators were uncomfortable being told (He used the word told) what to do by the community. District leadership saw no other way out of this uncomfortable situation, except to abolish this productive community voice.

In addition anyone attending board meeting would hear leadership complaints about keeping the CAC busy. They would moan they could not find things for them to do. This is the same board that has a long history of not only failing to achieve goals, but a longstanding inability of being able to set proper goals. Even when a committee established by them developed a system to set and achieve goals they voted agreement to, they threw it out before they could be made accountable.

Leadership caused the demise of this Community Advisory Committee and the severing of the last community voice. Even though this committee had an extensive history of concrete accomplishments, the board still did not want to take their leadership role to provide legitimate tasks for them to work on. Whether this was intentional or incompetence, it speaks to inadequate leadership.

Why would a board derail a positively productive group of people willing to work for nothing? Why would you take a talented and energetic group of people and tell them you don't want their help when there are so many things to be done?

If you take a board whose environment has made their main strengths their arrogance and their ability to not hear, you set the stage for fear of productivity. If they are expected to do more than merely vote money to educators, the answer is really quite simple.

This leadership group, mired in arrogance, lacking its own ability to accomplish, would be threatened by such a productive committee as CAC. They lacked the strength and wisdom to understand they get some credit for loosening the reins to such a committee to accomplish. Their arrogance only allows them to be threatened by the truth.

The board is the dinosaur. The CAC came to an end because of its ability to


27

accomplish and the board’s inability to lead. In that act, the community’s voice to the board was severed, cutting the communities throat.

CHAPTER 4 - SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH

From The Pedestal To Corruption In September of 1997 I was scheduled to attend a conference for new school board

members put on by the New York State School Boards Association. I was apprehensive about what I was going to experience. However, I tried to approach it with an opened mind and not see it as a waste of the districts money.

I couldn't help feeling it was an indoctrination opportunity of new school board members. My misgivings proved to be true. We were bombarded being told how special we were for giving our time to become board members. We had done nothing yet let alone anything positive and already we were designated as special.

The theme was marketed over and over from speaker to speaker and class to class. The other major issue marketed was boards presenting a united front. Failure to do this was placed as a real negative on those that disagreed and broke ranks.

My real education came when we went to dinner with the child of a new board member and their significant other. One was working on their PHD in the education field and the other their masters.

As we discussed education as is usually the case, the discussion turned to money. This PHD candidate stated, "Teachers could never be paid enough for what they do."

This is an attitude I have heard voiced often by educators, but never so clearly. "Handling 25 children is difficult," he went on. "We are developing the future of our country," he continued with the arguments I had heard so often. They were worded so much like those previous arguments, like the drumming in of a marketing slogan.

I went on to ask, "what about a non college educated person who has to deal with 25 poorly educated adults, spread over a half square mile factory and has to make sure they perform their duties minute to minute, hour to hour, on a daily basis."

"That's comparing apples to oranges," this student who never worked an independent day in his life defended. "I still believe teachers could not be paid enough."

The apples and oranges was another of those standard answers that avoided looking deeper into the subject.

"Do you realize what you are doing?" I asked? "You are putting educators on a pedestal, referring to them like they are deities. You are designating what they deserve merely because of a designation, not anything to do with performance or results. You are inviting corruption into the education system."

He seemed to sense the mistake in doing this. He acknowledged the potential fallacy of the situation. Still, it did not change his stance. He reiterated "I still believe teachers could not be paid enough." His educator fiancée supported his assertion whole heartedly and as vocally.

The quality of performance or results was not even mentioned. There seemed to be no criteria for them to be good teachers. It seemed implied that since they were teachers, of the teaching profession, they were special and therefore could never be paid enough.


28

Sadly my view was these students would be drinking from the enlarged trough this attitude would create. Though they would probably not admit it, they were influenced by the corruption going in their favor. I saw students of education not educated to become exceptional educators to teach our children, but indoctrinated to advocate their professional position. All that extra money we pay for educated scholars to teach children goes to indoctrinate those students to indoctrinate our children as to why educators are so valuable.

From kindergarten they are indoctrinated 13 years in public schools. Then they choose the profession and get immersed in indoctrination by elite educators at the college level for four more years. With the intention of improving educators we pay them even more to be indoctrinated another two years to get a token masters degree. That allows two more years of indoctrination by those most indoctrinated and an excuse for increased pay. All the good intentions to educate to improve teachers became costly indoctrination to build the lazy elite educator.

Nineteen years of indoctrination cannot be overcome to bring back the commonsense needed for good, solid educators. That is what has happened in education. Equating more money with better education has destroyed the integrity of the education system. Many educators are working as mercenaries for more money and more power. Education of our youth is not even a secondary goal. Sloppy Is As Sloppy Does

One of my early assignments as a new board member was too participate in the

contract negotiation of executive secretaries. I was assigned the task with a member experienced in contract negotiations.

After several meetings with the secretaries and a new proposal being presented by the secretaries the other board member, Al Dedrick, said it was time we put a proposal before the board. I suggested we should have time to work out the figures, but he was insistent on it going to the board.

In executive session, I expressed my concerns over the figures of the confidential secretary’s new proposal. I had done the math and stated "over time we were giving them much more than they had originally requested."

I expressed my concern before the board about the figures. I also commented that according to what the secretaries union had gotten, it was still fair, but I didn't think we should approve it without letting them know we were aware of the difference. I thought it could make us look very foolish.

The superintendent said bluntly that my figures were wrong. The contract went for a vote without consideration to the figures. New and not sure of the complex figures I had worked out, I too voted for the package to the confidential secretaries. Compared to the other contracts, it was fair. I didn't think these four secretaries should be set up as an example.

In retrospect, maybe I should have voted no. The rest of the board seemed so disinterested in the figures, I was amazed. It was like they just didn't want to know.

On the way out, I asked the superintendent if he would check my figures. Several days later he let me know my calculations had been right. I asked if he would share the figures with the board. Showing how the step changes in salaries compounded would be important knowledge.

He said he would use another example so the other board member involved in


29

negotiations would not be made to feel he had made a mistake. Though he didn’t seem shy about telling me my figures were wrong, even when he wasn’t sure. I agreed another example was okay and waited to see how the lesson would be presented. It never was presented at a board meeting. Whether the error was shared with the other board members by the superintendent I do not know. Future behavior makes me say I do not think it was.

Though this one case was not tragic, this failure to work out the numbers carefully was the rule rather than the exception. It seemed decisions could be more easily made by many when the information was shoddy and sloppy. It made it easier for board members to put their own opinion to the issue, rather than the facts. It increased the cost in the future as the sloppy work accepted by district leadership was bound to do. Community Survey Committee

There is little doubt the Community Survey Committee was made up of dedicated

members of the community. All worked diligently to bring the work to a positive conclusion. Ray was an excellent chairman, driving us to focus on the goal. As individuals and a group with regard to effort, I would say an excellent job was done. I am glad we are looking at the process. It limited the effectiveness of the work, we did. As the process progressed, I began to see our success might be limited. It reflected the equation DF2.

What does DF2 mean? It means "Designed For Failure". This can be quite unintentional. It can happen because of weaknesses instilled in a system that will not allow a project to reach its full potential. When we allow this, we nurture the status quo.

Why do I make this determination after such a great and honest effort was made. Due to this process, great effort and energy has been dissipated into questionable results.

My disappointment in community participation has become less. The results are what many members of the community expressed as their expectation. Clouded results depress communication. Perhaps this is why the community does not participate. I hope we can analyze this attempt so we can achieve greater success in the future.

I believe the first error we made was to agree to consensus. We said we could not report until we all agreed to what we would report on and how the report would be delivered.

This neutralized the information found in the study. There were high points and low points worthy of hearing. Sure, they may not have been represented by masses of people. The fact some of those points occurred numerous times indicates the possibility of a problem area.

We leveled the hills and the valleys. We bulldozed the landscape until there were no distinguishing landmarks on the terrain upon which to take a bearing. We neutralized the voices of the public till there was little to be heard.

Not only did we neutralize the conclusions, we made average what actually was neutral. We defined four (4) as average. This skewed the data making 4.1 above average. In many questions it could be the point our head went from above the water to below the water's surface.

A 4.13 is that place where we are standing on our tip toes, the current luring us deeper, small waves filling our mouth and nose, causing us choke and cough. This is what we described as average.

At the very least, fours (4's) indicate people who had no opinion or not enough


30

information to form one. Some were waiting to see or were on the fence. They did not agree or disagree. They weren't answering the questions with an average rating, but a neutral rating.

I too agreed to consensus. I now believe it was a mistake. On the other hand, I learned much by trying to function under these guidelines. I have some serious thoughts about them and what the guidelines should be in the future and why.

Coming away from such committee work with one basic voice neutralizes the many ideas and points brought forth. It takes an opportunity for great discussion and interaction and silences. It smothers the seeds of idea exchange and debate. I believe we even said the words, "Making the information more palatable. That was beyond the scope of what we should have done.

Consensus seems to destroy creativity. It takes dynamic ideas, explosive interaction and waters them down. It dilutes the fuel that can inspire innovative solutions. It allows us to not look at ourselves or stand up for what we believe. It nurtures mediocrity and the status quo.

How do we deal with this in the future? We not only do not ask for consensus, we ask for a minority view and presentation to answer and even challenge the majority view. We encourage opposing views, because joined with the majority view it might expand our vision. The demands of education warrant the approach.

It is an opportunity for new, different and opposing ideas and views to come to light. It is a chance to encourage debate. We can volley ideas about that might never have been considered. It is a catalyst that can challenge us to look within and question allowing us to find new answers.

Consensus was not the only guideline that kept us from doing the best job. The short time period allowed for it to be done exposed us to falling well short.

It forced us to push through for the purpose of finishing on time. Yes, sometimes the discussion was off course and we needed to push ahead. On other occasions conversations needed to be continued, exposing all sides of issues. There was not enough time.

This limited the discussion and debate that is so important in any working group. It kept us from developing something new and innovative and insured we would produce a facsimile of the past. Time frame and consensus shackled us so we could not reach the full potential in our endeavor. Creating a survey became the goal. An effort to communicate only gave the appearance. There were smaller but still important issues that tainted our results. Many of the elderly are not used to the styles and scales of these types of surveys. Looking back at our explanation of the scale it was very vague to those not familiar with this kind of survey.

The scale should have been illustrated in at least one place. Probably it should have been at the top of each page. Each number should have been defined in that illustration. I believe we may have discussed this earlier in our talks. I think the rushed nature of our calendar my have caused this to get lost.

This may explain comments and indicated scales being in conflict on many surveys. The numbers and comments often expressed views at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Such surveys as ours are selective to those who wish to participate. Those that have an active opinion, and are looking to voice them become the focus, no matter which end of


31

the spectrum their opinions lie. There are many people in between who are never heard. We can exclude them because they are silent and will not have an effect on the

decision making process. However, they are a part of the community and to build fairness we must attempt to find out what they are thinking. These are many of the people that feel completely alienated from the system. Why?

Perhaps actual random polling is what needs to be done. With the effort exerted by this committee, it may not be out of the question.

The effort given by all members of this committee is to be commended. To feel the real satisfaction of success, the results must equal the effort. We have an important learning experience here that can aid future success and be of great service to the school district. Regents Grade Changing

A discussion Monday, Aug. 24, 1998 in executive session caused me to do much thinking. When I left the meeting many things I should have said entered my mind. In this letter, I intend to summarize many of my thoughts on the Regents grade changing incident for you and our fellow board members.

On Monday I heard greater hostility toward the reporter of the misconduct than the perpetrator. The reporter's actions were characterized as equally serious. I'm not certain that is true. I have concerns this characterization has to do with causing embarrassment for the district. The reporter defied the status quo, therefore must be punished.

In some ways, shouldn't we be thankful to the reporter for pointing out a horrendous problem. Misbehavior that seems to have been occurring for years was brought to light. It was mentioned, "Are we shooting the messenger and will this prevent other teachers from coming forward?" Is that what we want?

I had previously talked to the Superintendent about the possibility that the person phoning the state about the grade changing had tried to follow the chain of command. Ignored and frustrated, could it be they took the big step because they saw no other way? Could this person have felt backed into a corner and an end run was the only way to handle this nagging and festering problem?

The Superintendent pointed out there were some foul-ups in the chain of command. When the informer made administrators aware in January, he was merely told it was being taken care of. When no progress was seen, why wouldn't it be assumed nothing was being done? Apparently, it had been going on for some years without being addressed?

There were failures in the chain of command. The suggestion this problem has been ongoing for a number of years points out this failure, itself is an ongoing problem. Discussion of these failures and addressing them needs to be a major part of the dialogue and a major factor in the way we judge the messenger.

The reporter of the grade changing has been labeled a troublemaker, a loose cannon and many other such derogatory terms. These all fit the perception from fear of embarrassment. I can understand but not accept these judgments.

Others might consider this person a hero. Yes, this person may have employed some poor judgment. This person may have gotten emotionally carried away. Still, this person took risk to address something that was wrong. That can be an honorable act.

I would suggest what this person is lies somewhere in between the two. It usually does. Then, we must look more deeply into this and look at the broader aspects of the case.


32

More than likely, disciplinary action is warranted on some of the actions. I believe this issue needs to be discussed from a broader and more objective view.

I also have concerns about the approach. My observations tell me the actions we are taking are more geared toward the avoidance of embarrassment than using this issue to address known problems for the best solutions.

Fear, and in this case fear of embarrassment, which also translates to fear of being discovered, is not an environment for the best decision making practices. Steps are being taken timidly because we don't want the public to know this happened. We may even be using two teachers as camouflage to avoid the source of the problems. This is a point where decisive actions could address longstanding problems that have been nagging us for years.

Finally, the issue of Wednesday's press release must be mentioned. When I saw it in the paper, I was angry. I felt as if I had been punched in the stomach.

On Thursday evening when I saw superintendent's press release, and found the article was a misinterpretation by the newspaper reporter, it made me feel a little better. Still I did not feel good. Here's why.

If we send a news release to the paper and it is white washing the issue, it is dishonest. If we send a news release, and through a news reporters misinterpretation it whitewashes the issue, and we leave it there, isn't it just as dishonest? My conscience tells me it is.

We are facing an opportunity. We can change our approach to the public and the members of the district from PR and marketing to open and honest communication. We have been standing on this threshold often. Still, we have not stepped beyond marketing to honest communication. If we don't, we will certainly revisit the mistrust of the past. Systemic Dishonesty Hampers Education

I do not believe higher standards can be achieved, or education can be beneficial and fair to students if that system's foundation is based on defective processes. We must identify faulty operations and work out specific actions to strengthen them.

How Is The System Weak?

Decisions are forced to happen prematurely. Items and issues are pushed through the system. The process is out of control and creates decisions that give every appearance of being similarly pushed through the system. An issue coming out in the Friday packet which may be received anywhere from Thursday to Saturday may be voted on the following Monday night. It is left to the board member to call and seek the information before the meeting.

This leaves Monday to make contact. An answer may be given over the phone. Contacts may not occur in a timely manner or at all. Many questions are simple where that answer over the phone is adequate.

On the other hand, one could hang up the phone and have another question immediately arise. The process is limiting and discouraging when used. It is easy to give a quick and painless answer that will avoid conflicts. It squelches debate and more important debate in public. This process speeds the issue along with little opportunity to check its advance. It diminishes the opportunity for the presentation of creative options, strategies or


33

approaches being presented. It is friendly to the status quo and unfriendly to debate and innovation. This process spreads members of the school board very thin, diverting them from their real job of leadership.

The committees giving information and guidance to the school board are made up of board members. This further exacerbates the weaknesses created by the process. The limited time and rapid pace necessary further weakens the process by spreading board members time dangerously thin. Proper time is not given to issues. Issues that should be delved into are often glossed over. Those committees cannot conduct themselves nearly as effectively as is necessary. So, some of the dishonesty of the system is created by the process moving too fast and the board members being spread too thinly. It all boils down to time. Both the leadership role and committee work suffer. Again, this supports the status quo and stifles creativity. Unnecessary Paper Clouds The Issues.

Another weakness that further derails the integrity of this system is the paper work going through the process. Many items not essential to the decision making process, but having value in the public relations aspect, are presented to board members. This often dilutes attention to the really important issues at hand. It obscures focus and attention from those things that are most important. To recap, what is threatening the integrity of the system is the speed of the process and the magnitude created by being spread too thin, and the type of information presented. These problem areas could be addressed.

Proposed Solutions Here is a multi part solution to strengthen these weaknesses in the process.

Information should come to the board in the Friday packet, the meeting before an issue is voted on. At this earlier meeting, questions may be asked. Questions can be asked, and information can be obtained and presented at the next meeting. Discussion and a vote can occur in a very smooth and organized process. When a board member is not understood by the rest of the board, the cause for misunderstanding may be explored. Understanding can occur and thought about before a vote is taken.

This process could have several advantages and positive results. First, it takes place in a time frame that allows better decisions to be made. More understanding will take place, both with fellow board members and the public. Strengthening this process will help the school district and most certainly the children. It allows discussion in such a way the public will be privy to the debate and much more information. They will also have an opportunity to add information. This will aid the credibility of the board and the district. It will require planning and a principle of planning that will be beneficial in all areas.

Board members may choose to be on a committee or two, but the committees (except for perhaps the personnel committee because of the confidential nature of the issues) should be made up of community members. This should include some members from within the district.

By using such a format, we are allowing the time for board members to be leaders. We are increasing the horsepower of our information gathering process by enlisting the vast


34

knowledge and expertise of some very capable community members. We are opening the committee system to numerous new ideas from broad perspectives outside the education field.

These working committees will collect the information necessary to strengthen the process and present stronger recommendations to the board. Members of these committees should be selected to foster diverse representation and opinion, along with special skills applicable to that particular committee. Those from the school should make up a portion of the committee as any other group, not being a powerful block that could swing a vote on its own. Issues, debate and logic should be the decision making tool, not special interests.

When making their recommendations, representing the majority of the committee, it should be presented before the board in public session. A minority argument can and should also be presented at such time, given the same amount of time as the majority view. This should happen anytime any member desires it. It should be encouraged when they don't. This will provide the board with alternative points of view, keeping the board opened to other possible options.

What advantages does this system have? 1.) It would remove a burden from board members, giving them more time for their leadership role. 2.) It would also provide much expertise from the community in areas board members may be lacking in knowledge and experience. 3.) It will provide the board with broader perspectives. 4.) It would further distance the board from the tendency to micro manage. 5.) It would provide the community participation in the process lost by the disbanding of CAC. 6.) It would provide more horsepower for the improvement of education in the district. 7.) It could be instrumental in giving credibility back to the district leadership. 8.) It will show the board trusts the citizens of the community.

More diverse and broader points of view would come from such a system. The debate and checks and balances in such a system would make it more honest than the one we presently have. It would be more friendly to innovation, creativity, efficiency and effectiveness. It would create a system with greater integrity. Certainly more debate is necessary about this type system. Guidelines for such committees would have to be developed and documented. More detailed discussion and plans would be necessary. This is a system that has great potential to bring greater efficiency, effectiveness and credibility to the board and the school district.

These systems could also play an important role in alleviating the demands on district personnel. This should be considered in the discussion of Keith's memo of March 5, 1998 regarding administrative staffing. Example

A working Outcomes and Assessments Committee could render much service to

Chris Delaney regarding compiling the numbers for the new state report cards and other such responsibilities. This could keep her from spending evening and weekends at work.

Such an active committee could aid in research. This would give greater detail to the information presented to the board. They could enhance the decision making practices.


35

Additional horsepower from community participation could save the energy of district employees, keeping them working at an efficient and effective level and save money for the community. The extra load could be taken up by this extra people power.

When we see gains in these areas, raises may be in order based on expanded and successful fulfillment of these leadership roles. This approach could be applied to the Assistant Superintendent and Business Manager too. Such a strategy for most board committees could see greatly increased effectiveness for those committees and the board. Background Thought Behind The Proposal

During our conversation at the meeting of February 23, 1998 Art asked me directly

what processes were dishonest. I mentioned our voting on the CSE recommendations. It was said, that was a process we could do nothing about. Truly, it would be difficult to do anything about it, but not impossible. That answer, "we can't" makes it seem as though we must live with processes that are defective. This indoctrinates us to live with them. Before we know it, we are saying we cannot do anything, because it presents a difficult task or it would rock the boat. As I look at the education system with regard to the school board approach, I see a system that has evolved many inherent problems. Many were prompted by vested interests. Acting under these conditions can make honest people appear otherwise. This presents the appearance of an organization without integrity. It will create an atmosphere of distrust even with the best of intentions.

We stand on the threshold of putting a proposition about donations by participants of the sports program, on the ballot. An example is before us. We have already gone through the budget process for the sports program, lumping all sports together. Some sports have been initiated since pay for play. These new sports have been added and supported by the argument they would cost the taxpayer nothing.

Now we are asking the taxpayer to finance the programs again. Not only the programs they were against a few years ago, but an expanded array of programs. Programs that were sold on the basis they would not have to pay for that expansion.

We should have gone through that budget sport by sport and seen where we had opportunities to reduce costs. We should explore the programs for effectiveness, efficiency, extravagance and fat. We should look for alternative courses of action that can meet the needs of the children and the district.

We should ask, can those supervising the intramural programs be scheduled differently, rather than pay out more stipends. We should have a budget process which asks, where can we save? We must leave time available to explore the issues. We should look at opened and creative ways to find solutions.

We have boiled pay for play down to an emotional issue. We have avoided an analytical process. Such actions could explain why the public sees the district strategy as a drive for expansion rather than a quest for efficiency and effectiveness.

These actions short circuit the decision making practices. They create more opportunities for ineffective, rash or even wrong decisions. As Principal Carney said during his budget presentation, "If we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always gotten."


36

CHAPTER 5 SPECIAL EXECUTIVE SESSION (October 21, 1998)

I knew the meeting on October 21, 1998 the Special Executive Session was going to

be a rough one. It was to discuss an article I was going to send to the Star-Gazette which is pretty much reflected in Chapter 3, the first three paragraphs.

While I attempted to get some issues acted upon, and though I was told certain things would happen, they didn't. I was negotiating and voting in the boards favor and was not being given the concessions they said I would get.

An excellent example of this was when the superintendent's contact came up. I learned his salary was $95,000 plus $5,000 yearly contribution to his tax sheltered annuity. His $95,000 salary announced to the public was actually $100,000 when the annuity was added to it. The state even required it to be reported to them as salary, but the Horseheads School Board chose to hide it.

The way it was discussed it in the board meeting it was made to sound like the part of this years compensation would be a one time contribution to the annuity and therefore not compounded. I later found out it was an increase in the yearly contribution that obviously would compound.

It did not seem an honest way for the board to conduct themselves. The Superintendent then told me that information about salaries and TSA's would be posted at the voting sites. At this point the community had already accepted the lie. So getting the information posted during the vote would expose the lie and inform the public. I could live with getting this much at that point.

When I voted, I checked and the information was not posted at the site. Then I asked around and it was not posted at any site. When I asked superintendent about it he stated, "We didn't want to put it out with flashing lights."

I did not ask it be put out with flashing lights, only as he said it would. Combined with the intimidation surfacing because of the Regents grade changing incident, I felt a real need to slow down this less than honest behavior of the board. A series of articles on the general weaknesses of the board system seemed to be the answer.

Though I expected a great amount of intimidation to occur at this meeting, little did I realize what the board was willing to stoop to maintain their status quo.

Though I had prepared a presentation, I used only the first page of it, my reasons for doing the article. I will only relate a small amount of the goings on. So much happened so fast during the 2 hours and 15 minutes that I only remember a fraction of it. I do know it all had the same flavor.

They started by asking me generally, “when wasn't their time for discussion or communication.”

I brought up the community survey that had never been discussed by the board upon its completion.

The superintendent said, “You weren't happy with the results of the survey committee anyway,” as though that was a reason not to discuss it. That is the precise reason I felt it was necessary to discuss. It wasn't all the results, but the way the results ended up being presented. It appeared the board and the superintendent did not allow things to be discussed if they could reflect badly on the district.

In a short time we came to intimidation; Intimidation as a part of the regents grade


37

changing issue, in the context of teachers not speaking up about it. These aspects were not even discussed.

I mentioned the issues that made me think intimidation is an issue in the district. It was mentioned on the community survey 8 times. Current and retired teachers mentioned it to me. The lady who mentioned the front door being dilapidated being tag team attacked at the board meeting was another example. These things along with the incidents in my article, which was the reason we were there talking.

Mark Brinthaupt asked for specifics of what the teachers said. I told him, I didn't know of specifics, I was looking at a number of occurrences of the issue being brought up and the specific incidents I mentioned and thought it was made evident enough times to be a concern.

Russ Sousey demanded, "Give us your plan for getting rid of intimidation." I answered, “You demanding a plan on the spot is intimidation in itself. I cannot

be expected to come up with a plan at this moment." Superintendent Reister interjected, "That's a fair question. He has every right to

ask that." Mark Brinthaupt lectured me for a time. He paused at which time I thought he was

done. I began to answer. He snapped, "Don't interrupt me. I was speaking." Then he went on another 5 to 10 minutes citing his numerous years of board experience. Then he told me how I didn't understand the process well enough to make comments about changing it.

The long pause I would later find was a tool of some of the older members. They would leave an opening to bait you, then treat you as some snot nosed, disrespectful kid when you tried to answer them. It was an ingenious tactic that fit right in with the well orchestrated tag team attacks that almost had to be choreographed.

I was accused of personally attacking the board in my article. The beginning was pretty calm. As time went on more blood appeared on the water, my blood, the sharks began a frenzied attack.

The system became apparent. I would be confronted with a series of questions and/or accusations. In an attempt to answer them, I would be pre-empted when I finished one. Then I would be confronted with another series of questions and accusations in an attempt to confuse me. Gradually the accusations became more frequent than the questions. The air was filled with accusations and questions, words flying at me in a steady stream.

From a supposed discussion, it turned into an assault. From the discussion of my general article, a supposed attack on them, the meeting turned into a personal attack on me.

Al Dedrick accused, "You seem to be an obsessive compulsive. You need to seek help."

I chuckled, dismissing his diagnosis. He said sternly, "I'm serious. You seem to be obsessed with these stupid processes of

yours." While I believe the order is correct, the time between may have been longer. The

superintendent said menacingly, "I will fight you with everything I have if you do this. If you do this we will not be able to get anything done."

While his initial threat of a fight did not deter me at all, that this would affect our ability to accomplish improvements did catch my attention. His initial words prepared me to fight, the follow-up made me apprehensive about his intentions.

Board President Wanda Myers asked me, "Have you ever made any of your processes


38

work?" Then she hesitated for a few seconds. As I began to answer her question she asked, "Why aren't you at Cornell anymore?"

I said, "I was laid off, but I had made many of my processes work." She interjected, "If they worked, would they have laid you off? That says a lot

about your processes." I wanted to say, "I was laid off because they worked and I had to step on toes to do

make that happen. I might still be there if I hadn't and I was willing to accept that." The urge to defend myself was strong. However, it became obvious the worse thing I could do was begin to defend myself on each personal issue and accusation they threw at me. They would have turned this into an even greater inquisition about me, and completely lost the aspect of discussing board behavior.

Besides, it would have only made them smell the blood more and they would have gotten worse. After that, I never really felt defensive. I shed the need to defend myself.

Joyce Budney probably hurt me the most. When I read my article to her over the phone several weeks before, she expressed no concerns. She indicated there was a time it would be appropriate, though not before Oct. 9th a meetings taking place on the grade changing issue.

In front of everyone she accused me of questioning her integrity. If she had expressed these concerns before, I may have reworked the article by the criticisms she gave. In fact that night after we talked on the phone I made some changes based on her comments.

Then she demeaned, "You're going to have to start your own business. You'll have difficulty working with others."

Systematically they were targeting my self esteem. The issues I was exposing were being transposed to defects in me. If I hadn't questioned myself, my weaknesses and foibles time and again, I might have fallen prey to them. I think, but will never really know, that I kept from showing any signs on my face while this took place. I listened intently and spoke calmly when the opportunity arose.

President Myers drew my attention. She leaned over the table and then leaned toward me and looked into my face. I felt obligated to look back at her, into her eyes. She began saying, "Say I'm dishonest to my face." She said it louder, "Say I'm dishonest to my face! Say it!" Each time it became louder yet, until she was screaming in my face, "Say it! Say it! Say it!"

I looked her in the face as the screaming got louder and she leaned closer to me. It was embarrassing. I wanted to turn away and give us both relief, but the behavior I had seen exhibited from this board told me that would be a big mistake. They would see it as weakness and attack harder. By this outrageous behavior I knew this would allow them to count it as a victory. Finally she got up hysterically and retreated into the hall crying.

Budney followed her into the hall. There was a momentary embarrassed silence, but then the interrogation went on.

I saw the superintendent looking at Brinthaupt and shaking his head. Perhaps it was my own paranoia, but it looked like he was signaling as far as progress they were making on me. It was said there was not preparation for this meeting, but the smooth nature with which the attacks occurred one right after the other, it was difficult to believe. Someone I confided in later suggested to me such a coordinated attack first from one direction then the other needed planning.


39

I question something the superintendent had said to me, when Al Dedrick jumped in accusing, "I was slapping the superintendent in the face."

I replied, "Can't I question him without it being a slap in the face." In that moment I realized this was part of the intimidation. Neither I, nor anyone else could question the superintendent or the board without it being characterized as a slap in their face.

Sue Ungvarsky leaned over and looked at me sincerely. She said something insightful and nice which renewed some strength. She said, Jerry, your too hard on yourself."

God, I questioned why I felt I had to do this. I don't like to get on the pedestal of right and wrong. It really bothers me that I am left to do this, because I am really not a good representative. Perhaps I am just a coward, afraid of not being able to look myself in the eye if I don't speak up. Sometimes I do just want to turn and run. I will admit there were a few times this evening I was on the verge of doing just that.

John Abbott who had supported my right to have articles printed in the paper suggested some people would think I'm a crackpot for my articles.

I wanted to say, "I have considered that many times. Then, perhaps it is my role in life to be a crackpot." I stifled the urge again to defend myself and make this about me.

Rose Apgar said what she always said. "The people I met at the conference said how lucky we were to have this superintendent.”

After two hours silence finally came. I was asked nicely by Al Dedrick "do you intend to send the letter."

I shared, "I don't know. I have been given a lot to think about and I need time to think it over. I don't want to rush the decision."

He accused, "You like the power of holding the letter over our heads, don't you? That's what this is all about, power, isn't it?"

I just walked out while they all remained in the superintendent's office. While I walked out of the meeting feeling victorious, a shot of adrenaline boosted me. As I pulled away in my car, I could see in the window they were all still there except for me and Brinthaupt who left early.

It was over two hours of constant verbal battering. Though I was under attack constantly, I did not get personal. I did not get angry or raise my voice. I was amazed I held up the way I had. I was disappointed I felt had missed so many opportunities to say something I felt was important. As I thought more, I realized I was lucky to stay on target as much as I did. I wondered if they saw their intimidating actions in relation to the concerns I brought up about intimidation? Then I came to the conclusion it wouldn’t have mattered to them if they had, otherwise they would never behave in such a way.

Later I would descend into the doldrums for almost a month because of this venomous, frightening and well choreographed attack. A person not used to this level of attack and politics could be driven to suicide I thought. They could certainly be driven from standing against the board or even driven from the board.

I remembered a case of suicide in the district around this time and the superintendent saying on several occasions I hope it was nothing we did. I clearly felt if he behaved this way toward a vulnerable person, it could have been.

Al Dedrick accusing me, "You like the power of holding the letter over our heads, don't you?”, was right when he said, "That's what this is all about, isn't it?" This whole thing


40

was about power, but not my quest for it. It was about power and school boards and some member’s inflated egos wanting to wield it. I think it is not just about the Horseheads School Board and how warped its thinking had become, but perhaps many school boards and the education system that has allowed, perhaps encouraged them to become this warped. Epilogue

I did get an apology for the screaming in my face, from the board president but not

for any of the other behaviors I was subjected to. Interrogation is the word that finally came to mind. It seemed a well oiled

interrogation designed to break someone. Nasty, poisonous, venomous, hateful are all words I can sincerely use to describe the session.

A few other words that come to mind as I think about it are dirty and ugly. It was an intellectual mugging. It only served to prove my concerns about intimidation in the district starts at the top. It made me determined to fight this ugly behavior.

While the immediate experience seemed to have no merit, other than I weathered it remaining calm and keeping my dignity, it seemed to me a victory. Perhaps all it showed was I could take a verbal beating and was willing to take it for what I believed. I knew it was one of those occasions though extremely unpleasant and distasteful, down the road I would see it as a positive experience. Maybe then I would understand why. Even during a few weeks in the doldrums stemming from the confrontation, I felt this was true. This was also how I perceived my school board experience in total, even at this early stage.

There were several things about myself I relearned. I would never allow others on the school board to be treated the way I was, even if their ideas were totally different from my own. Debate changes minds better than this type of tag team intimidation.

When I did present my plan for reducing intimidation in the district some months later, I was told, “You don’t care about the kids.” How often my views encountered that statement!

It was followed up with the accusation! “You are destroying the school district.” I questioned how one individual expressing concerns over honesty and integrity of the board could destroy the district. Because I even saw possible evidence of intimidation my mental stability was once again questioned but this time in a letter by the districts legal council.

What this was really telling about this meeting was how intimidation was used when the discussion was the problems of intimidation were the issue being discussed. How quickly intimidation was employed only served to prove my point. The board embraced intimidation like a child needing a security blanket would embrace a teddy bear. They rushed to embrace hypocrisy like a frightened lost child running to embrace their mother.

Intimidation is used when people are afraid of the ideas coming out. Why were they so afraid of ideas like integrity, honesty and a negative view of intimidation? Was it because the absence of such debate was the well from which they derived their power? Such silence keeps opposing ideas in the dark and allows prevailing ideas to become warped. A board member so frightened as to behave this way should be questioned and debated. A board that exhibits such a character needs to be fought right down the line.

This board was exhibiting the same bullying that the education industry was blaming for the massacres of students that were occurring on public school campuses. It displayed an


41

ignorance that would seem to be contrary to the term education. Yet, here sat educators, spouses and parents of educators acting like a holy inquisition. Their zealot cry of “for the children”, seemed to justify to their poor behavior on their part no matter how hypocritical it was.

This is when I began to see the seriousness of the board’s problems. Since much of the behavior was taught, supported and encouraged by its unifying organizations across the state I began to conclude it was probably more than just this board’s weakness.

CHAPTER 6. INTIMIDATION AS A TOOL

The following contains materials from 2 different proposals presented to the

Horseheads School Board to reduce the use of intimidation as a tool in the Horseheads School District. The first was submitted on April 26, 1999, while the second was submitted almost six months later on September 19, 1999. Also included with both proposals was a detailed plan on how to achieve the objective. Neither of these proposals were ever discussed by the board.

Introduction

In October 1998 at the special executive session, I was challenged to present a plan to reduce intimidation in the district. The goal is a huge endeavor and certainly could use ideas from many other directions.

My plan served two purposes. First is the goal as stated, to reduce intimidation's use as a tool in the school district. This plan takes steps to carefully and intensely address the issue. It focuses on the broad issue with results in mind.

Second, it is an introduction to a planning and goal setting process. This is planning to achieve goals with positive results in mind. I see this as a need for a couple of reasons.

I believe planning considerations are needed because of the Intervention Presentation given by principals Ella Sheen and Dave Dallaportas. The materials we received in our packets were extremely warm and fuzzy. They seemed like the usual vague sell. They showed little of the substance that Dave and Ella delivered in the wonderful presentation they gave.

That presentation showed much thought. It outlined an excellent plan, using multiple strategies to achieve district goals of academic improvement. It used these strategies to ensure the goals would be met. The plan showed an intense focus and a clear path to positive results.

Then I saw a hesitation in leadership to commit to the possibilities of cost reduction. This is also a hesitation to reach the best results. We hedge because we do not want to be accountable.

I worry that poor planning is one way to avoid accountability. Not setting real goals to achieve results avoids the possibilities of failure on one hand. On the other hand it assures we will never really solve problems and reach important goals. Then we will continue to go on needing more money to improve education.

I see this in the superintendent’s goals. I will take one in particular to make my point. The goal of, "Visiting Schools More Often", is an easy goal to achieve. There is no


42

possibility of failure in this goal. It is easily measured. Visiting school buildings merely means placing a check mark on a list.

Visiting the schools seems more like an action step to some yet unidentified goal. We are sending the superintendent on an errand that might be a waste of his time and energy.

What is the purpose of visiting schools? Increasing visibility is more likely the goal the action of visiting schools will satisfy. Spending time in classrooms also aids that visibility. Still, I do not know the purpose or value of the goal of greater visibility.

This approach fails to identify goals properly and sets up plans with little chance of being effective. It minimizes the need to reach positive results. It wastes time, energy and other valuable resources that could be used for important goals.

I'm afraid this same scenario will neutralize the wonderful intervention plan. We'll put the action steps together, implement them, aiming energy and resources toward each one. Implementation will imply motion toward the goal. We will be satisfied with that implied motion, effectiveness and results of no concern.

We'll either avoid or lose track of the overall goal, failing to get near the potential the plan appears to have. We'll take the teeth out of it, by making another string of disjointed programs with no focus.

I believe intensive scheduling has that implied motion of implementation. To this day, I do not believe anyone could really prove it is working. A few people relaying anecdotal tales as flimsy evidence.

To exemplify my point further, I will use technology. Our plan to get the hardware and the software is well under way. I have not yet heard a plan of how this will be used in the classroom to improve education. My impression is our goal was to get the machines, thinking their presence will solve the problems. Somehow it is perceived the machines being in the buildings will weave a magic.

The goal of how these resources will be used is so important to the final vision. The planning of hardware and software should not have been done without the planning of how they were to be used. I'm sure someone has had this vision. It might even have been the disbanded CAC.

I don't see a clear picture of that goal. Sadly computers on the desk are being characterized as success. Again implementation has implied motion. I do not see a plan to attain positive results. This approach appears to be a trend. It is compatible with our marketing mode. Failure to achieve goals creates defensiveness when questioned. This could nurture an environment that might find it necessary to use intimidation. Whether a motivation or a weakness in the education industry, these approaches appear often. Intimidation Re-introduction

In Webster's New World Dictionary, Copyright 1986, Intimidate means - 1. To make timid; make afraid; daunt (daunt means to frighten or frustrate) 2. To force or deter with threats or violence;

Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary (Copyright 1976) - Intimidate

- 1. To make timid; Frighten 2. To inhibit or discourage by or as if by threats.


43

The definition Lawyer Jim Young, district legal counsel used in his letter to make my

suggestions of intimidation within the system seem crazy, was very simplistic, selective, shortsighted and self-serving, focusing on threats and violence. It showed the extreme forms of intimidation to pronounce a person, suggesting its presence in the system, had a few screws loose.

No doubt it is an excellent tactic to daunt (intimidate) someone from following up on such a concern. It could easily be used to exemplify the definition of intimidation: to make timid; make afraid; daunt.

We have all seen insidious forms of intimidation that are not as obvious as outright threats and violence. Such intimidation is used to manipulate or control people without the use of such obvious actions. One reason for using such methods is so the acts of intimidation cannot be seen and those using them will not be accountable for their actions. They will not be seen as intimidators and bullies.

Here are other definitions of intimidation that are quite interesting and certainly find credence within my concerns.

Webster's Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (Copyright 1936): Intimidate - To make afraid or fearful; To inspire to fear; to dishearten; to abash; as guilt intimidates the brave.

Intimidation - The act of making fearful, the state of being abashed.

Abash - To disconcert, to discomfort; to cast down the countenance; to make ashamed; to confuse or confound, as by exciting suddenly a consciousness of guilt, error or unworthiness.

The Random House College Dictionary (Copyright 1975): Intimidate - 1. To make timid; inspire with fear. 2. To overawe or cow, especially with a forceful personality or superior display of fluency, fame, wealth, etc. 3. To force into or deter from some action by inducing fear.

These definitions give many more options for ways to intimidate than legal counsel's letter suggested possible. They also give definitions that fall within a logical framework in which they could easily exist.

Counsel's predilection for attacking personalities rather than issues and problems enables one of the boards own weaknesses and perpetuates intimidation. We need wisdom of counsel that strengthens such frailties, not magnifies them.

Still, a statement by board member Al Dedrick without the enabling of legal counsel, "We beat you down on integrity, now it's intimidation!" rings in my ears. There are many reasons for concern when such a statement is made in regard to a denial of the existence of intimidation. The statement reeks of intimidation. Most frightening though is that leadership, including the board, does not see the relationship between the statement and intimidation, and intimidation and integrity.

A system where integrity is lacking may and probably will find intimidation gaining strength and usage. While integrity is inversely proportional to intimidation, lack of integrity is directly proportional.


44

Intimidation has reared its ugly head in numerous places in the district. Here are just

the ones I am aware. 1. Working and retired teachers relating fears of retribution upon speaking up, as both active and retired teachers. 2. Teacher expressing teachers were too timid to voice doubts concerning intensive

(block) scheduling. Were afraid of retribution. 3. Issue of intimidation and retribution coming up eight times on the Community

Survey, and not addressed. 4. Community parents suggesting they are leery about speaking up or writing letters to

the editor for fear it will be taken out on their children. 5. Tag team attacks by board members, teachers and union president on people speaking

at board meetings. 6. The regents grade changing incident had its basis in intimidation for many years

Long before I ever became active in the education system, educators I talked with brought up concerns of intimidation. Over the last ten years teachers have repeated the same concern. These are red flags, symptoms that would dictate the problem may warrant looking into.

When talking about the problems education is experiencing today, often educators, present and retired, highlight the issue of speaking up. At meetings or teachers' conferences they suggest if you don't talk the party line, there is pressure put on to keep you quiet. Ideas outside the leadership or party line are not wanted. Fear of retribution, (and I use that word, because it was often used) to them seems to be a legitimate concern. This apparently long standing trend does signal the possibility of a problem. I would not make it a major issue under only these circumstances.

When the intensive scheduling debate was taking place, a teacher came up to me to express her concerns! "If there are concerns, why don't those teachers come forward and speak up," I asked?

"Many teachers are very quiet," she pointed out. "They are afraid to come forward and voice their concerns about intensive scheduling." The suggestion was there would be negative repercussions if they did come forward.

Would this alone or in conjunction with the previously mentioned experiences cause me concern of a major problem? I would still say no, probably not. I would keep my eyes and ears opened for additional information. Intensive Scheduling: The Warning Flags

As I went to the meetings on intensive scheduling, the words of the people pushing

the program raised the red flags. Though two of the promoters suggested to me, “You are


45

listening to the wrong people.” They asked me if I had been to all the presentations. On the spot I wasn’t sure. When I hesitated, they turned away laughing at me. Then I realized I had been at all the presentations! In all those presentations I heard nothing that indicated evidence their block (intensive) scheduling worked. The presentations were all a bunch of fluff and no factual data, only feelings and impressions, nothing concrete. Their actions which I had seen numerous times before and after that time were designed to demean and intimidate. I said to them as they walked away, it is only you and your group I have been hearing. The vagueness of your own words and absence of concrete data caused me to doubt.”

The information given out was vague as were the answers to questions asked. To this day, talk of four or four and a half years of research are thrown out as a defense, but little solid evidence was provided.

After the first year, less than 50% of teachers handed in their evaluations of the system. The second year teacher evaluations dropped even further. I must ask, are they intimidated, frustrated or disinterested. One educator speaks up for them all at meetings, and this is accepted as the voice of the teachers. The Community Survey

The issue of intimidation and retribution by educators came up eight times on the Community Survey. True, it was only about 1.2%. Eight times on the 1998 Community Survey, the issue of intimidation being brought up says something. Community members saying they would not voice concerns because of retribution, as parents and employees, deserves consideration. This in conjunction with the numerous other mentions of intimidation by some educators makes it an issue that should be investigated.

Immediately upon the introduction of the word intimidation, local education leaders applied spin on the issue characterizing it as student's intimidation of teachers these days. I do not minimize this as a concern. In fact the subject is intimidation and this concern should be looked seriously from any direction.

When considering intimidation being used as a weapon in the education structure, it must be recognized children exposed to the intimidation within that structure, would learn from the example. I would question the defensiveness to change the issue rather than investigate the use of intimidation as a tool on the whole. Incidents of intimidation are all red flags requiring attention.

This issue was buried with many more on the community survey.

Community Members Concerns Often over twenty years I have heard community members suggesting they are leery

about speaking up to educators or writing letters to the editor, because it will be taken out on their children. A number of parents truly believe this is the case.

Concerned parents speaking to me on a number of issues express concerns of retribution on their children. They fear if they speak up or create an issue, their child will suffer. Many of these have been first hand. Others are second hand, friends expressing the concerns of friends.


46

Certainly I question the objectivity of the first hand information. It is human to let our emotions run away with us when we are personally involved. The second hand information takes one more step to distortion. Still, the frequent occurrence of such information points out a need to be aware and vigilant and not avoid the information.

Though I did not over react to these concerns, I do believe these stories shouldn't be discounted. They all expressed legitimate worries of those individuals. The question is, is intimidation an inherent part of the process that taints the educational environment of the children?

At this point, I said to myself, no, it isn't a sign of a major intimidation problem, but we must be aware. Have these incidents presented enough information to be concerned. Perhaps enough red flags have been raised to warrant a look. However, this is a sticky area and one should proceed cautiously. My Own Observations

When my own observations were added to this long list of suspicious events, my fears were raised considerably. Blatant Tag Team Intimidation in obvious places like board meeting and special executive sessions made the rumors of such behavior much more real.

Tag team attacks on people speaking at board meetings. Over the years, I have seen attendees speak up at board meetings. I saw this with Mr. Rose on the "Dinosaurs must die" issue, the lady concerned about the front door needing painting. I saw them both mocked by board members.

Defenders from the staff, union president and others often speak up to defend the district. Just as often it was done defensively, without consideration to the person expressing their concern. At times those joining in from the audience chimed in without recognition to speak but beat up on those making negative statements from the audience. The board president and board let this happen.

Sometimes it even came from a sideline table at the meeting giving the feeling such people were not themselves a part of the audience, but a part of the authority. I remember thinking it was like a mob getting out of control.

It gives the impression of an ambush, when a community member comes to voice their concerns. Some members of the community are as familiar with speaking in public as are the educators. More are not. Such a gauntlet can deter them from attending the meetings. If they fear speaking up because they will be abused, laughed at or ridiculed, they see no point to attending.

My own observations combined with the concerns I have listened over the years begins to give more credence to these concerns of intimidation being used by educators as a tool. Regents Grade Changing Incident and Intimidation

The Regents grade changing incident had its origins in intimidation and wallowed in

it all the way through. I will say this is but one man's hypothetical view of what might have happened with the Regents grade changing issue. Part of it was planted in my mind through discussion with educators.

I have heard it asked often, how could such a thing happen? Word was it had been


47

going on for years. Teachers present and retired expressed they were not surprised. They had hear about it long before.

I submit the presence and accepted use of intimidation as a tool aided this incident to occur and escalate. Power in a department, if used improperly could be intimidating. If people merely want to get along, they often have to give in to the status quo. There is risk in standing against or speaking against such power. So teachers involved in the system could easily accept what happened as a matter of survival.

Take the issue of tenure. A new teacher coming in would be reluctant to rock the boat if they see no support. After all, if the department head is using intimidation, there is a possibility this is an accepted leadership behavior. If untenured teachers were to stand up regarding an issue, in such an environment, they would invite retribution. It could be costly to their career.

If leaders are using intimidation, they certainly would not respond kindly to so called "Boat Rockers" or "Trouble Makers". So, young teachers entering the system and seeing something wrong, grades being changed on Regents tests, have been given great motivation to ignore it.

How would the issue of a teacher being told an incident of grade changing had been taken care of, respond under the pressure of such an environment. They probably would not trust something was being done. This would be seen as a signal to back off. After all, they are aware this behavior has been ignored by leadership for years. Why would they think anything but cover-up would occur now.

What if this person really cared and really wanted to do something to solve the problem. Would they follow the chain of command if this issue had been going on for years?

Probably not! By following the chain of command, the intimidating leadership would then have them cornered. The chance for intimidation to be applied would be given on a silver platter. So, someone in such a position might logically push ahead, avoiding the occasion to be intimidated.

They very well might jump into actions that are unwise or even wrong. Seeing a wrong being done, sticking to proper channels might insure failure of their mission. A quick and bold stroke might be the only way such a person could see to address the dishonest situation.

The possibility of intimidation playing a part in many aspects of the Regents Grade Changing Issue is almost certain. The possibility it played a major part also exists.

This issue is the icing on the cake. This suggests intimidation is a problem and for the good of the children and community dictates looking into. Plan to reduce the intimidation factor

Systems that are obsessed with their own interests often evolve an intimidating style.

Intimidation develops in the dark. It grows when the light is kept from exposing it. When these systems evolve, bringing light to them will confront the intimidation

that has been encouraged. Though the term bringing light is symbolic, this light is shined in many ways.


48

Bluffing Leads to Bulldozing When people are bluffing their way through things, they tend to bulldoze when they

are being made accountable. In other words, if people are faking their way their competence, there will come a time they need to intimidate to protect the charade. They will need to coerce questioners to maintain the façade. If they feel they are being exposed by questioning, they attack. It is a case where offense is seen as the best defense. Intimidation is one tool to use to maintain their position.

Intimidation becomes necessary when we are hiding things. When we are not doing the right thing, we must find ways to keep people from discovering it.

What is another option to intimidation? When people are confident, they do not

feel threatened so easily. It gives them the courage to discuss things openly without the need to attack. Shining the light does not threaten confident, honest people.

How do we instill this kind of confidence? Competence allows people to be confident. When people are competent, they become confident in themselves. With that confidence comes the ability to be questioned without becoming frightened or offended. Confident people are not afraid to question their own motives. Competence allows us to seek solutions to problems that will benefit all.

When personal agendas are the primary concern, there is much hedging. People look at the facts with their own well being the main concern. Actions occur in the shadows. People are given the information to manipulate them, not with the intention of giving the facts. This creates an atmosphere for the tool of intimidation to flourish.

When intimidation is used as a leadership tool, those who are being lead have few choices. One is to succumb to the intimidation beating them down. Even if people succumb, they will secretly resist, digging in their heels and rebuff any way they can. Another choice is to directly confront the intimidation.

With these thoughts in mind I drafted a plan to reduce the use of intimidation in the school district.

CHAPTER 7. BENDING LANGUAGE, BENDING TRUTH

Most likely, educators would be the guardian of language. After all, they use it to teach future generations. So, what does the guarding of language entail? It can't be that important a responsibility.

The meaning of words plays an important roll in where we head as a society. How the meaning of a word is presented can dictate behavior. Respect

For instance, educators use the word respect often. What does it mean the way they use it? In education lingo (educanese), respect means not hurting a person’s feelings if they are of the majority opinion, their opinion. It doesn't mean not hurting their feelings frivolously. It means not hurting them at all if they are thinking the right way.


49

The educanese for respect means you would not address a presentation of school board or administration information that is wrong and call it wrong. You might suggest it is wrong within a closed group, but when it is presented in spite of its failures, it would be disrespectful to expose it in public.

What if the information was intentionally incorrect? Bringing attention to it would also be considered disrespectful to the deliverer of such information. If presented wrong intentionally, calling a liar a liar would certainly be a behavior lacking respect.

On the other hand it is not disrespectful to feed the public misinformation. In fact, it is okay if it avoids confrontation. It is not disrespectful to the public if you treat them like they are critters incapable of rational thought. It is not disrespectful to demean the public as a group or as individuals if they are presenting ideas against the education industry.

Respect seems to be defined as not hurting ones feelings. Self inspection and disagreement can do that. So can criticism of the process. In fact any questioning can be disrespectful under a status quo type system where everything is taken personally. Still, remember, this respect only refers when applying the education industries side, not those who hold differing ideas.

Benchmarking

Let's take another word, benchmarking. Education adopted this word from business to show they were taking a more business like approach. In education benchmarking became comparing themselves to those like them. It was a very safe system of self-inspection. It did not require any accountability.

Benchmarking in industry was a look at organizations involved in the same operations as yours. Larger or smaller, more or less efficient overall, you compared the tasks they did better to learn how to do things better. Yes, you compared yourself to those doing the best job so you could see what your organization needed to do to accomplish superior results. The purpose was to increase effectiveness and efficiency.

Educators have bastardized the word benchmark and the process so they can justify where they are and remain comfortable. There is no desire to find out who is the best and what they are doing to achieve it. They're afraid they might find out money is not the answer. In fact it may be too great an influx of money corrupts educators till their performance is mediocre. Integrity

Let's look at another word, integrity. Integrity is seldom heard within the halls of the education industry. How can that be? Shouldn't integrity be the foundation of any education system?

If the word is used, a pretty standard discussion will begin. It has nothing to do with defining integrity. Even if integrity is brought up in a general way in academe, the response will be, "Are you saying I (or we) don't have integrity."

"No, I'm saying these processes take away our integrity. The processes themselves guide us into doing dishonest things."

"Are you saying I'm dishonest? I feel like you're saying I'm dishonest." It seems to me, you are calling me dishonest too."


50

The word integrity is avoided as though there is some kind of fatal, communicable disease associated with it. Just to say the word might wipe someone from the face of the earth. The word actually brings fear to the face of many, particularly academics. The become like the rat cornered, turning to attack, going for the throat.

How can integrity exist in an organization if it is not discussed? If the word cannot even be spoken? Why is that the case? Character

Character and character education are being much discussed. The definition conveniently used and first in the dictionary I looked at is, "The combination of emotional, intellectual and moral qualities distinguishing one person from another."

This weakens character to a hypocritical comparison. In this way positive characteristics can be held up for accolades, while negative characteristics ignored. Hypocrisy at the foundation of the character discussion renders character meaningless.

With character education a goal, how do these manipulations of words affect it? One form of character seems to be defined as volunteering. Perhaps you could not give a damn about those you are volunteering to help, but it looks good on your resume. You volunteered and will be judged to have good character.

You value education. Your educational pursuit is to gain that elite job and make you a millionaire. You'll show those people that kicked you around. But, you do value education and that is deemed good character.

Such definitions allow our president, William Jefferson Clinton, to be hailed as a person of good character. His caring words with trembling lips and crocodile tears welling up in eyes are mere symbols when looking at another definition.

Third place among definitions of character is, "Moral or ethical strength: Integrity". Ignored, integrity is exiled from our language and society. Under this definition the crocodile tears of the President could not be mistaken. His broad based lying and deceit keeps Clinton's most ardent supporters from declaring he has integrity. Instead like children caught in the act, they excuse, "Everyone is doing it."

Is the first, flimsy definition of character the one we want to foist on our children? This example of phony behavior is what we are modeling.

The United Way scandal several years back, a Vice Presidential Bag man and more recently the International Olympic Committee scandal shows a trail of hypocrisy. Institutions masked in ideals, naturally bringing titles of good character to participants. People should be judged on their actions rather than associations, if integrity is the standard.

Are we educating children in a hypocritically convenient definition of character so politicians, big business and the education industry can maintain power over them? Failing to teach children the tools to sort out right and wrong, we render them helpless to confront this corruption.

Children are brainwashed by TV marketing before they can walk, set up to be the victim of Joe Camel and Michael Jordan alike. State sponsor gambling in the name of children's education ensures money to government while paychecks that should be directed for children's food are left on the bar. This vast societal hypocrisy will teach children to do the same.


51


52

We are afraid to produce independence that might question the system... status quo. It is our intention to mold children so they can be exploited and manipulated profitably!

Could it be the anger and hate we see coming out of situations like Columbine in Littleton Colorado are fueled by these insincere messages? Children who hear the high and mighty words are crushed when disingenuous actions so often say, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Most certainly, this is no justification for killing or even wounding, hitting or hurting. Still, deep seeded feelings of frustration and futility, nurtured by hypocrisy, will crack fragile young minds.

Blatant abuse of the language for intellectual manipulation and intimidation will embitter young victims. If we continue to endorse playing with the minds of individuals for power and profit, some are going to shatter under the strain.

In such situations, more children will be affected. They are frailer and have not yet learned to cope with such insincerity.

Many of these victims might be among the more intense and perceptive children. They would catch on to this great scam of society more quickly. As we force children to become adults faster, they will recognize the dishonesty sooner. Thus comes the end of innocence.

We need to equip children to voice their opinions, fighting back by being heard. A conversation, addressing powers, a letter to the editor, discussion and debate are good, civil, tools. They are healthy ways to share opinions, questions and concerns. Thomas Jefferson viewed well-educated public as a keystone to democracy.

However, many wielding power are frightened by questioning. They intimidate, teaching the voice of opposition as a cause of problems rather than the cure.

If we indoctrinate children to be used instead of educate them to use the system to deal with the wrongs they see, we do injustice to our democracy. Condoning such hypocrisy is planting the seeds of tyranny.

If we allow hypocrisy at the foundation of character, healthy young minds in desperate futility will revolt. I think this could also be categorized as child abuse. Look around! We have responsibility for what happened!

If integrity is not the basis of good character, character is also being redefined for personal agendas. If integrity is not the wellspring of character, character has just become another marketing tool and has really nothing to do with character.

I guess I would say the bottom line, to the education industry is, misrepresenting the facts to the public is not disrespectful, but calling educators on such behavior would be. Is this the way we want character to be defined?

The Horseheads Intermediate School Newsletter for May 2006, attempted to address some character education. They spoke to the meaning of Honesty / Trustworthiness. They did so in a somewhat significant and effective way. First it gave the sense, the definition, of the words. HONESTY/TRUSTWORTHY MEAN: Being sincere, truthful, honorable and fair with integrity

The next step was very important. It went on to describe what these behaviors would

look like. I other words, how behaviors of being honest and trustworthy would manifest


53

themselves in real life. What would they look like if they were used everyday in ones interactions with other people? However, it goes beyond interactions with other people, but regarding ones interactions within oneself. AN HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON:

• Does not lie, cheat or steal • Is reliable by keeping promises and follows through on commitments • Has the courage to do what is right even when it is difficult • Is a good friend and doesn’t betray trust When I saw this in the newsletter, I was furious. I thought how, could the

superintendent and board look at themselves in the mirror, when a school they lead is projecting these values.

About two weeks after this came out, evidence of extensive illegal campaigning in school facilities were discovered. Awareness of these activities at the highest levels seems to not have made a difference. Word again went out from the superintendent, it was being fixed.

Like Pandora’s Box opened, or the flood gates to the dam being left opened during the storm and the town flooded, the damage is done. The superficial closing of the box or gate does not fix that damage. The campaigning had been done.

The affects of it would not be reversed by saying the school does not endorse specific candidates. The impression had already been given that the school did endorse specific candidates.

Like the lawyer that says something in front of the jury he knows he shouldn’t and his opponent objects. The judge sustains the objection and then tells the jury they should disregard what was said. The first lawyer smirks, knowing he has planted a seed, and there is no way the jury will remove it from their minds. It will only grow when nurtured by other statements and actions.

I called the superintendent to ask him if those bullets regarding honesty and integrity represented him and his behavior. He wasn’t there, but surprisingly did call back. He began the conversation in his usual jovial good ole boy manner. I lost the courage to ask him. I became uncomfortable confronting him, perhaps hurting his feelings. Then he started to schmooze, going into over drive on the manipulation. I saw the manipulation, felt it and it offended me and was motivated to ask the questions.

I read the entire section from the newsletter and paused after each bullet. I asked, is that you? He verified that he fit the bill on each one. He added he wasn’t perfect and that no one is; which I acknowledged. This was the man who was supposed to address campaigning in classrooms and at concerts when it was brought to his and the boards attention over a year before. Would this action have held up under, is reliable by keeping promises and follows through on commitments?

No, it wouldn’t have! One could argue this was a mere miscommunication, a mistake and not interpret it as a breach of honesty and integrity. However, the magnitude of the violation in 2006, after it was to be addressed in 2005 seems suspicious. This is particularly true when the superintendent’s office and the school principal were aware of the letter. They should have warned against what happened the previous year. This certainly is an issue of reliability, keeping promises and following through. This represents just a small sample of


54

the dishonest actions engaged in by Horseheads School District leadership! Attending board meeting it becomes apparent the superintendent often promises

information to community members and doesn’t deliver. Many board members have taken on the same method by turning such questions, that will never be answered, over to the superintendent. They are as culpable for the failures in reliability and follow through as he is. They pass it on, knowing by history he will not give answers, washing their hands by engaging in the dishonest process.

Look at a board member’s overt dishonesty in his letter to the editor before the recent budget vote. The superintendent tried to defend his dishonesty with an approach that still was not honest, implying state aid is not taxpayer money. Starting with the superintendent’s denial during a board meeting the term “Legal Representative” did not appear in administrator contracts to that it was in regard to sick days and not healthcare. Many such indiscretions could be listed.

At the last meeting, which I left early, I was told the superintendent excused actions by saying, “when I get emotional, I put up my blinders.” I was shocked with disbelief and vigorously questioned the person telling me this. They reiterated this is what he said. I could not believe my ears.

I asked, “Do you understand what he is saying. He is telling us when things get tough he doesn’t want to see the truth. He uses it as a method of seeing what he wants to see so he can justify his actions. That is lying; lying to himself and to the people.” Both are dangerous to the truth! That admitted action lacks the courage to do what is right even when it is difficult.

Presenting himself as a leader that could take the district in positive directions was not only a lie, but it cheated the district. You could say he stole his salary by misrepresenting his competence to face the issues and do what needed to be done. This is a betrayal of trust the school district gave him.

A defense has been the district will pay much more for the next superintendent, I guess implying we got him cheap. We pay $137,000.00 salary a year for a lack of integrity, leadership and competence and isn’t that actually lying, cheating and stealing? It shows you how the oft used comparison model can quickly take you to mediocrity and less; to downright failure.

We as a community are supposed to be happy about such performance because the superintendent a few miles away is making more. It is presented to the community that we ought to be grateful for what we have, when it is actually a hole in the bucket, constantly draining away the treasure of our community with nothing in return. Lately as each superintendent leaves after his five years, we are farther behind than when he came. The last ten years at least has seen a major degradation of our school district in every area.

Cronyism, a practice well used in our district depends on lying, cheating and stealing. Individual talents are misrepresented to obtain these prestigious, well paid positions for friends. The competence too often is not there. The community doesn’t get what it paid for and staff members are being paid highly for substandard performance. The community has been lied to, cheated and stolen from in this process. It is a short changing of the school district in every way.

Now he admits some of the weaknesses and looks for dispensation and forgiveness. However, he rejected the help of those who offered assistance through this rough period and could have helped him to learn to be competent and effective. He betrayed the trust of


55

people that strongly believed in him and could have and would have helped him. He allied with many not standing for honesty and integrity. He embraced those

who were using him for their own benefit. He rewarded those contrary to honesty and trustworthiness, unless you consider trustworthiness someone vowing, “You lie and I’ll swear to it!” He removed those people that stood for integrity so that the chances of being caught were lessened. He welcomed a selfish, greedy gang to run amuck in his administration.

The admission of weakness cannot absolve. It is not repentance, but only highlights failures of honesty and integrity. To go down that list and say he fits the description of honesty and trustworthiness is putting up the blinders to avoid seeing what is lacking, the courage to see the truth. This is not being sincere, truthful, honorable and fair with integrity.

This school board and most its members are as guilty of every act as is the superintendent. Only two fairly new members who have questioned are absolved. His board encouraged, defended and nurtured many, no, most of his actions if not all of them! Board members cannot put the blame on him and wash their hands as was done with the last superintendent. It is easy to argue I should not attack personally. Then how else does one address the reprehensible behavior of individuals.

Behaviors illustrate character and integrity! Actions speak louder than words! The present contributions by the present board temperament, seems to be a lack of integrity that is satisfied as long as personal and political agendas are served. The best superintendent candidate by recent definitions seems to be one that will fit in with that board personality. All the character education classes in the world will not recover from the dishonest behaviors of district leadership that says to the students, “Do as I say, not as I do!”

Out of control arrogant intelligence tells educators it is alright to manipulate language in this way to benefit themselves. That is not only evident in this chapter, but in numerous examples throughout this book. Like fast talking con men they use words to fool and confuse rather than communicate.

CHAPTER 8. A SCHOOL DISTRICT SAGE I attended the Horseheads School Board Candidate Forum last night. It presented the

same depth as typical board meetings. Surprisingly, Mr. Brinthaupt, with eighteen years of board experience used the word

integrity twice. Pronunciation seemed the extent of his understanding. Proudly, pompously and precisely, he defined the only issues legal to discuss in

executive session. In a previous answer he revealed the board takes the debate behind closed doors, illegally adjourning to executive session. He appeared oblivious to his contradiction, yet was anxious to reprise his “Good Ole Boy” role.

The candidates apparently agree that leadership and representation are mutually exclusive. The incumbent candidates, especially those with the longest service, said money was the answer and without more they could do nothing.

They sloughed off their mistakes coolly, evidently lacking desire to recognize, let alone understand them. They cite their human frailties with noses stuck on the ceiling. Like


56

the self-important dolt, they make the same critical mistakes over and over again. To the voters I can only make one suggestion. Even in the cow pasture, fresh piles

are a sign of life. With a few exceptions, sitting on the board too long allows indoctrination that leads to dried out thinking if there is any at all. Hopefully a good flushing will help.

Even so the gene pool seemed shallow, devoid of ideas, motivation and direction, like the organic frisbees in the pasture.

At that Thursday May 15, 2003 Horseheads School Board Candidate Forum, Mr. Brinthaupt announced he deserved a medal for his service in his self-introduction. It is funny how he always hails his length of service for this honor to be bestowed. One wonders if his presence on the board isn’t for his own ego, a pedestal to replace the medal he hasn’t received, but clearly thinks he should.

Never in the years I have attended meetings or served on the board with him have I heard him say anything about the quality of his service. Neither have I heard or seen evidence of any contribution of original ideas or proposals. He seems to be a guardian of the status quo, standing in the way of any new ideas or improvements not coming from the educators themselves.

With his eighteen years of service, Mark’s importance is his representing the personification of the board character and personality. Perhaps that of the education industry also! He acts as though the community is lucky just to have him there. His presence is a blessing to all those around him and certainly to the great unwashed, the ignorant members of the community. Clearly it seems he feels superior to those who think differently and perhaps anyone who thinks at all.

Fellow board members are lucky to have him there, rolling his eyes, to show his disapproval of what they are saying. Putting his pointing fingers on either side of his nose, hands folded over his mouth and thumbs under his chin, he holds his head up, closing his eyes, as if praying to god, please spare me having to listen to these idiots. One wonders if Mark isn’t asleep during those times. He appears to believe his presence is so wonderful that even if he were sleeping, all should be grateful he is sleeping in their company.

Then he preaches pontifically, “this is about team work. It is not about I or me, but about we,” he lectures. “It is not about the individual, but about the group.” He preaches that once the decision is made any signs of individuality should disappear. His actions speak differently than his words, because his performances certainly seem to be about him. In this he epitomizes hypocrisy.

I have seen board decisions, some based on attacking individuals and destroying the reputation of those individuals. I have seen a vote taken place in executive session, then taken to the public and like putting lipstick on a pig, voted on so it never appeared to be the ugliness that it really was. The debate of the issue never occurred in public.

An individual is then supposed to go on and agree to consensus on issues that are absolutely wrong and corrupt? I don’t think so! This is a warped view that is being promoted and it seems Mark Brinthaupt has bought into it completely.

Then, he brings his childish behaviors into the fray. Actions of mocking and intimidation to serve his individual desires and manipulate others to his agenda are frequent. These tantrums are perfectly acceptable to him. Others should accept the rules laid out by his


57

cronies and good ole boys over 18 years as gospel. The rules he contrived through his years of experience position him to be the sole interpreter.

Like a child, he does not speak to someone who does not act the way he has interpreted they should. He tries to isolate them from the group and is usually successful because few board members have the courage to be on the opposite side of his bias.

His sophomoric behavior can be devastating to most and quite effective in silencing their voice. Making jokes about them when they are not there. Systematically and methodically, his childish actions chip away at their credibility and reputation. Depending on the person, it may diminish their confidence and self-esteem as well. At the very least it will create undue stress. These bullying behaviors must be included under his definition of teamwork.

While in one breath he announced at the candidate’s forum, “we do not air our dirty laundry in public, we take it to executive session.” The next breath he proudly, pompously and precisely cites the three issues it is legal to discuss in executive session. With great self importance at having the answer he pointed out they are personnel issues, contract negotiations and real estate negotiations. Apparently he did not see the hypocrisy in his performance, which sadly is too often the case.

No, dirty laundry is not aired in the Horseheads School District. This would require recognizing, admitting and understanding the mistakes made. Then perhaps the laundry would not get so dirty it had to be hidden.

This is one of the areas Mr. B. was so blasé about in pontificating non-answers to questions. This is one time in his blatant superiority he is willing to admit to lowly human frailties. Mark, with a smirk dismisses his mistakes because of these frailties. “We all make mistakes,” Mark said with a coy smile. “We’re only human.”

I think if Mark were to be really honest with us, he would probably have to tell us he hasn’t made any mistakes on the board and probably not in his life. That is probably what he believes. That is likely because he lacks the strength to do anything else.

He uses his sneaky methods to hide the dirty laundry till the stench permeates the air and can’t go unnoticed. Like a cat scratching in a litter box to cover the mess, Mark ridicules, attacks and intimidates those he talks about working with as a team, bringing an arsenal of under handed manipulations to bear on them.

While in the past I had attacked board behaviors but did not attack individuals as is the nature of the Horseheads School Board. I believe such rampant hypocrisy affects the entire community and must be addressed and confronted.

Mr. B. did use the word integrity twice, I think the first time I have heard the word pass his lips. Pronunciation seemed to be the extent of his understanding. He stumbled over his answer like the forked tongued politicians he so quickly tries to distance himself from, but so closely emulates. His meaningless discourse most assuredly showed no understanding of integrity, as did his long history of behaviors.

Even with all the examples of his inappropriate behavior, Mark will use his methods of mocking and belittling to explain what I wrote away and marginalize me and my words, as board member John Abbott would say. He will attack my credibility, reputation and mental balance to sustain his position. He’ll make a few of his cracks that no one else understands and try to laugh it off in his good ole boy style.


58

Al Dedrick will easily accept Mark’s words, because they are much alike. It is important for him to believe what Mark says. The good ole boy conversation will take place between them, bolstering each other’s egos. To look at Mark critically would require he look at himself. He lacks the strength.

The rest are going to read this and even though they hate to admit it, find me to be right. They are going to be filled with relief because someone said what needed to be said. In that instant a great pressure will be lifted. Then they are going to be filled with fear, because they are afraid to do anything about it. They know they are going to have to live with it if Mark gets on the board again. Even if he doesn’t they’ll have to live with accepting his behavior all these years.

Rose may be willing to accept Marks behavior, because she was willing to defer to Mark’s thinking that Thursday evening. I hope that isn’t the rule, giving her thoughts over to Marks mouth. It is an unsafe place for ones reputation. To see the truth, she will be required to look into herself. She may be at the most crucial point with regard to reclaiming herself. Like Joyce and John, she has a decision to make. Who will she emerge as?


59

Three ladies who have voted against the board know much of what I am saying is correct. They will get some satisfaction from what they read. While my actions have labeled me a crackpot, loose cannon, nut or any one of a number of titles, what I have written is the truth.

Its inherent board character makes it difficult to be proud of being part of the Horseheads School Board. Only those there to feed their own egos can get any satisfaction from an organization that behaves so badly. The district has made little progress if any over the years if we look beyond building programs.

Attending the Horseheads School Board Candidate Forum the candidates apparently agreed that leadership and representation are mutually exclusive. They didn’t see it as part of their responsibility. They backed off from leadership as though it is some one else’s job and their role has nothing to do with it. Apparently they don’t think representation of the people requires leadership in any form.

Sadly, this does not appear to be limited to those board members present. Mr. Brinthaupt’s words that have never been refuted, often revealed we were not there to lead, just to follow. His view, very similar to the Corning Painted Post School Board president, espouses dependence on the experts to show him the way. Their puppet like vision of leadership leaves education success to the educators, who have consistently failed to solve the problems of education and perhaps have even created many of them. So often he left the thinking to the educators with whom he had a vested interest. History shows a flaw in dependence on their ability to get positive results.

I have heard long time majority board members from a number of districts espouse board members roles. I attended the New York State School Board Association’s program for new school board members and heard them define the role of board members. Then I heard it from the Horseheads School Board leadership and majority members. It seems to be a role of following without question and making excuses for a lack of progress. I find I have little area of agreement if any with them.

Recently I read an article on corporate boards. The author suggested that boards still giving out golden parachutes to executives were not exercising the leadership that was their duty. (These golden parachutes are retirement enhancements to leaders who have failed miserably. Of which the Horseheads Board is guilty.) They were supposed to be there for the stockholders. Their mandate was to lead the CEO in a proper direction, not be lead by him.

I was told before I became a board member back in 1997 that a school board should be the same to the superintendent that a corporate board is to a CEO. They should be giving guidance and direction, not being lead by the nose. Unfortunately corporate boards have now stooped to a bent knee bringing their leadership roles to school board levels. As we can see, this has lead to major failure and corruption.

I don’t mean leading by micro managing! I mean leading by displaying the values the district should exemplify! The board and each member can lead by displaying values that comprise a board character having integrity at its center. Leadership, honesty and common sense can be areas where leadership is practiced and displayed and failure to behave properly in those areas is confronted. Leadership is guiding in many areas, but they must be positive (integrity at the center), otherwise the leadership can take a negative and warped turn as I believe it has in over many years in the Horseheads School District.

Failing to take the leadership responsibility has great consequences. While Mr. Brinthaupt disavows leadership, he does lead. He is led by his own ego and he leads with it.


60

Through his manipulative and boorish ways, he has led other board members to behave like him. He leads in all the wrong directions. His childish behaviors previously recounted have blazed a downward trail for other board members to follow.

Bullying, mocking, arrogance and ignorance are all part of the leadership he has provided. Gossiping, belittling and snobbery comprise his legacy that you have opened your arms to and embraced. He has pulled the board along with him. He and his cronies over many years have led the board to behave in a way that causes the community not to come to the meetings. Leadership with similar attitudes has modeled and molded the negative board character that exists. So too have members who have remained silent.

Board members choosing to avoid leadership allow him and others to do that. Leadership is not only leadership of others, it is leadership of oneself. If you choose not to take responsibility for personal leadership, then you will be lead by the unscrupulous as you were with the previous superintendent. I guess if you lack the fortitude to lead yourselves, you can convince yourself to shed any blame that goes with it. That’s why you can so easily attribute mistakes to being human, instead of taking responsibility and fixing what you have screwed up.

Then, it really doesn’t matter, if you don’t have the will to lead. Avoidance of leadership gives an excuse not to assess your own values. This leaves the door opened for those of poor values to grab the leadership reins. What happens then when the valueless lead?

Where would this country be if our forefathers felt leadership and representation did not go hand in hand? They would not have built a system that could have survived the crop of politicians at all levels today that do not see their roles as leaders and cannot envision how integrity is a necessary part of leadership. Because of the vision of great men in the past, the system can survive periods of incompetent leadership. If it goes on without periods of competent leadership (integrity), our system will eventually deteriorate and crumble.

If you resign yourself to being led by the actions of a pompous ass, you eventually become a useless pompous ass like the one you allow to lead you or a least become viewed as one. A large rubber stamp with the word “YES” on it might as well be elected to the board in your place. If you are going to behave with such lazy disregard for the community and yourself, you should at least have to face the looking glass and see what you have become and not be allowed to just pat yourselves on the back merely for being on the board. Saying you do it for the children is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Because, your example leads the children as other bad examples have led you.

One Year Later

This Saturday morning (March 13, 2004) I was browsing through some of the education related letters and essays I had written on my computer since my tenure on the Horseheads School Board had ended.

In the mix were letters to the local papers, to the Horseheads School Board and the like. I had not given up since I left the board. I still try to influence them with ideas just as I did while I was on the board.

I looked at several letters I had written to the board after last year’s school board candidate forum. It was one of those sessions where prospective board members showed nothing and incumbents displayed complete arrogance over doing nothing. Incumbents


61

Apgar and referred to accomplishments without giving any examples. Apgar deferred to Brinthaupt’s thinking, or lack there of, so often, she would again not have to do any of her own.

I was so annoyed by the behavior and the words it motivated two letters to the board. Those letters were probably the sharpest I have ever addressed to the board. I believe it was the beginning of my going after individual behavior, rather than collective board actions. I know it was the first time I attacked an individual anywhere near as savagely as I did on this occasion.

As I read the letters, I was shocked at how incisive they were. They cut with a savagery that made me wince as I read them. The brutality I found, I described to a friend as, violently tearing off all of Mister B’s clothing in front of the board. I felt I had exposed and humiliated him, and didn’t feel any too good about it as I revisited what I had done. I thought, though they reflect accurately major behavior flaws of the board and the individuals, I will not use these letters in a compilation of my writings.

Later my dog Brandy and I went out in the car to do some shopping. We ran some errands here and there. Finding myself heading through Horseheads, I stopped at the local train shop just to peruse some old memories. I left Brandy reassuring her I would not be long.

I walked the aisles of the small shop looking at all the neat little things they had, remembering as children how my brothers and I would set up the trains during the cold winter weekends. Still a child at heart, I enjoyed these journeys back in time.

A gentleman can up and began talking to me. I stood down the aisle while he was located at the corner of the display shelves. We exchanged words a few minutes when he was approached front the other direction ninety degrees from me. I could hear a voice, but could not see the person obscured by the shelves until he was right upon us.

Coincidentally, it was Mr. B. who appeared from behind the shelf. He looked startled when he saw his friend was talking to me. I immediately said, “Hello Mark!”

He began talking to the other gentleman, ignoring my greeting. This was not unusual or unnerving, because Mr. B had not addressed a word to me socially in about six years. On a number of occasions, when we ended up coming face to face, and politeness warranted a greeting, I ended up saying “hello” to the air. This is not to say he didn’t acknowledge me. This was his acknowledgement, a concerted ignoring of my existence with a look of disdain on his face!

He talked to the other gentleman as though I wasn’t there. The man in the middle at the tip of the triangle seemed uncomfortable with his position, having no idea what it really was. Our triumvirate soon dispersed and the awkwardness was over. Both men disappeared around one corner or another.

I returned to my perusing and my thoughts; back to my own private world. The encounter didn’t bother me one way or the other. It was no more or less than I expected. But, it wasn’t over yet.

After I checked out my items, Mr. B wandered over to me and started some small talk about what I was doing. We passed somewhat strained conversation about different scales of trains. We must have exchanged five or six sentences apiece. More than we would exchange as members of the same school board for three years. The encounter dissipated as bizarrely as it had begun.

This second encounter had me doing some thinking. He actually came back to speak


62

to me. After over six years of intentionally failing to acknowledge me, in the same day he behaved the same and a few minutes later did acknowledge me.

I could almost accept it as a change of heart, reconsidering his position. That would have been nice. Then, those letters I had written ten months ago and just reread that very morning came to mind. They attacked him openly and without remorse. They left him exposed to his board cronies. “After this, he is feigning to be nice to me,” I asked myself?

Was his a genuine attempt at taking our interactions on different course? Or was it another manipulation like so many of his behaviors? Should I give him the benefit of the doubt? Or, was this just another attempt to confuse the issue, and start me off on another blind trail, wasting my time? Bottom line is he never did anything to make me believe he could be trusted. I had been taken in by such ruses before, my time and energy wasted.

If this was a suing for peace, I could not trust it. I could not afford the time to test it again. I was at the point with Mr. B as I was with the board as a whole, they had to show me they had changed significantly before I would back off. They had used up and abused the many chances I had given in the past. I would only press forward with regard to my interactions with them.

Most striking, I realized I had less respect for him now than I did before. Not talking to me, though childish, in this new situation would have given him a little more credibility. What, I thought! Is he a masochist? All those years I attempted to behave civilly, politely and professionally he treated me as insignificant. I behaved like a boorish lout like him, giving him a humiliating flogging in writing and now he was sucking up to me.

The introduction of mutual respect coming from the Horseheads School Board and others I had witnessed, and the School Board Association was as I had come to see, a bunch of crap. Treating people politely and with respect was something which these long time and steadfast board members had no concept.

They would encourage others to behave civilly, then give them a barbaric beating about the head when they disagreed. They would lay out the rules of politeness and courtesy, and fail to abide by them. They would preach civility and courtesy, then look down on them as weaknesses. They only respected boorishness. Name calling, back stabbing, rudeness and wasting time saying nothing were the methods they utilized and admired.

I bounced these thoughts off a couple of friends. As sickened by the thought as I was, they agreed. Arrogant groups received them with less hostility, if they behaved like them, boorish, impolite, and obnoxious.

I had already determined if and when I ran for the board again, I would enter the fray ready to fight at the drop of a hat. I would go in embracing the great doubts about those with whom I would work and the system they were dedicated to. They would by no means get my trust implicitly.

In fact, from the board’s past performance and what I had concluded was the inherent board character, it had earned my mistrust implicitly. I would require proof of what they were telling me was true, rather than proof from somewhere or someone else it was false.

They could not prove to me trustworthiness by one incident. They had proved their untrustworthiness over and over again. They would have to prove, by their behavior that they could be trusted. Not just on one occasion, but many. They would have to replace their history of dishonesty with a fundamental trend of integrity I could believe in.

How sad, school boards seem to be places where civility cannot be a productive tool.


63

Quite the opposite is true. Incivility seems to generate greater civility from the brutish lot. How pathetic it is, that civility is perceived as a weakness by the arrogant snobs. That these people, leaders by intimidation are so often attracted to school boards and perhaps many other boards and governing bodies too?

When one sees how this has played out over the long term, it is far more sickening than it first appeared. To be productive on the board, I must do far more than point out and prove problems, give logical solutions and even supply some energy to implement them. The contributions I could make hinge on whether I decide to take on some of the board character and behave like an arrogant pompous ass, that abuses people through intimidation or not. How warped is that?

So, a review of this aberrant behavior being made an acceptable part of the school board scene has helped me to decide I will use those writings. They should not be an example of the leadership we place before the children. They must not be allowed to continue such behavior in the name of the children.

CHAPTER 9. INDOCTRINATED INTO THEIR PROFESSION,

NOT EDUCATED TO TEACH Apples to Oranges, A Convenient Dodge

It is one of the most frightening things I think I have seen in the education field. That

is educators have not been educated to teach our children the best way possible. But they have been indoctrinated to be unyielding advocates for their profession, expanding those ideas that strengthen their power and position.

In discussion with two educators about a new class schedule (block or intensive scheduling), they said to me, "You are listening to the wrong people." When in fact, I was listening to them and their presentation that made me doubt what they were saying.

"Statements like, "the nine period day, in place for a hundred years is the reasons students today have such short attention spans," lead me to question. But, that schedule had produced students without short attention spans in the past. In fact, it had been successful for years. Perhaps not the best approach, but how could it now be blamed for kids having short attention spans today?

Decreed opinion spouted as truth made me doubt the "so called" research. It brought doubt on the research and the people doing it and presenting it.

It is the words from the mouths of educators that now force me to ask these questions. Not just the words, but the same words repeated from the mouths of so many educators. The frequency of those words till what they say appears to be rehearsed dogma more than truth. It takes on the marketing look of a commercial played over and over again.

In the debate on education, educators making beneficial comparisons to other professional groups see this as comparing apples to apples. Bring in comparisons to those professionals, like summers and holidays off, not working weekends and having a bargaining unit for representation, and it is comparing apples to oranges."

Compare them to the majority of Americans out there working, and it is again comparing apples to oranges. This is one of the dogmatic statements often used to quash sound debate.


64

Summers off is not seen as a benefit. They whine, "We need summers off. We work so hard." I do not deny many teachers work hard when they work. So does the small farmer in his field, year round, never able to take a day off. The fisherman in the cold winter storms off the coast working in freezing cold wet to the skin. He works round the clock when the fish are running, getting days off filled with fear of where the next catch is coming from when they are not. This is "apples to oranges."

The worker in a plant who must work overtime when needed, or must stay there when snow keeps other workers away. I will say, I have seen many of these workers and as a whole few complain about or announce how hard they work as much as academics. These are some of the words that sound warnings to me.

"This is comparing apples to oranges." Why, because they are so much more educated. Does education warrant additional pay? Or should it be effective education that brings teaching effectiveness to the students, helping them learn and learn more, be what warrants better pay?

Is the education comparison really valid? In 1957 when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the United States put a greater value on education. From my childhood recollections, I understood American Education would advance.

It seemed they were saying a high school education would become the equivalent of years into college or even a full college education in the future. A college education would be far advanced over what it was in the 60's. More money to education and educators would help this to happen, keeping the United States at the top world wide.

I believe the communities and people were opened to this idea. More pay and better conditions to educators for this purpose were met with open arms. Perhaps we were too opened to the idea.

A once prized Regents diploma in New York State has no clout at all today. New York State education is scrambling to get back to the heights they once attained. More money to education has shown a serious degradation of education in the state.

SAT scores have had 30 points added to individual math scores and 80 points to verbal scores. More time has been allotted to do fewer questions. Still educators will argue we're not doing any worse.

I don't think it takes a genius to realize, more money did not advance education in this country. If educators were to do honest research I think it would reveal more money caused the diminishing of education in America.

Why should more money cause less productivity? The focus for money was a grab for power. Fair wages were enough for the educators of those times. It wasn't enough for those educators who felt they should enter the elite ranks of society.

As I discussed education with two young college students, the discussion came to money. This Phd candidate said, "Teachers could never be paid enough for what they do."

This is an attitude I have heard voiced by numerous educators, but never so clearly. "Handling 25 children is difficult," he went on. "We are developing the future of our country."

I went on to ask, "what about a non college educated person who has to deal with 25 poorly educated adults, spread over a half square mile factory and has to make sure they perform their duties properly on an hourly and daily basis."

"That's comparing apples to oranges," he said. "I still believe teachers could not be paid enough."


65

"Do you realize what you are doing." I asked? "You are putting educators on a pedestal like they are deities. You are inviting corruption into the education system."

He seemed to sense the mistake in doing that. However, he would be drinking from that enlarged trough. Though he would probably not admit it, he was influenced by the corruption going in his favor.

That is exactly what has happened in education. Equating more money with better education has destroyed the integrity of the education system. Educators are working for more money and more power. Education of our youth may not even be secondary.

Truly, in this time of failing education, I still hear that higher standards will take more money. More money has only made our education system bloated and lazy. Higher standards require just that; higher standards. It means not only greater expectations of students, but greater expectations of educators and education leaders. They really don’t deserve to be paid more for those greater expectations. They have already been paid for them and failed to deliver on that payment.

To pay more for that achievement is like being held hostage paying to have the education with held from our children released. However, it does not happen. They become even more arrogant and are emboldened even more. Each time we pay their arrogance grows; enamored with their own perceived greatness they hold the students and community hostage to an even greater degree.

***

Bits and Pieces

Both WENI’s Paul Lyle and The Leader’s Bob Rolfe recently exposed Corning

school district weaknesses like mysterious resignation syndrome. Similar incidents have history in Horseheads. Axing people without explanation encourages cronyism, a corruption present in both districts. Citizens are finally heeding Sylvia Huber’s warnings of serious education leadership degradation.

Inept leadership is responsible for the failing education system. Cloned substandard superintendents; manufactured weak leaders indoctrinated and certified in the education industry agendas at generous salaries, lack the competence to move education forward. Programmed to the status quo, their consistent failures expand the education industry, catalyzing the call for more funds to fix it. Incompetence aids their personal and professional agendas; profit and power.

The Corning lineup, Cuppola, Trombly and Staples led a downward spiral like the Horseheads rogue’s gallery of Reidy, Reister and Congdon, seeming systemic. Albatrosses around the community’s neck they implemented numerous programs, costing millions, having no positive affects (perhaps negative), on children’s education.

Impotent boards lacking valor, values and vision are equally to blame. They throw themselves at the mercy of these manipulative superintendents, expecting savior like qualities from production line pressed tin leadership; who are merely sophisticated, practiced, politicians. These charlatans are allowed free reign.

High district values and integrity must be well established by the communities. School boards must support and maintain the community ethics, institutionalizing positive principles and avoid indoctrination in the inherent arrogance and hypocrisy of educators.


66

This must be done to restrain and guide the abundant substandard and feeble education industry leaders.

***

In response to Margaret Schimizzi Smith’s letter of November 18, 2007 teacher’s

merit pay tied to AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) as described may not be the best way to administer merit pay. However, that should not eliminate the idea.

We ought to have the brain power in our academic and government communities to figure out a way to apply merit pay correctly and fairly. The first step would entail extracting the massive corruption from education.

To believe generally teachers’ incentive is children and not money is extremely naïve and dangerous. Public education is a major industry with union membership (NEA and AFT) of 4 million. Educators are bringing their personal and union agendas of profit, power, position and politics into the classrooms. The children are at best secondary?

State objectives of advancing education with nebulous goals of Adequate Yearly Progress leading to meaningless designations of Rapidly Improving or High Performing Schools, has education union lobbies behind it. With the education industries support the most aggressive goals of New York States Education Department peak at mediocrity.

Educators hide behind union agendas that sabotage public education and protect teachers from accountability. Students’ indoctrination by educators diminishes education, therefore the children.

*** Jack Liquori rightly defended, in his September 19, 2007 letter to the Star-Gazette,

the role labor unions have played in opportunity development in this country. Unions confronted many ills robber barons perpetrated on the American people, similar to recent attempts to allow illegal immigrants to flood America threatening its stability.

Sadly, union leadership co-opted the greed of corporate and government counterparts, catering to their own agendas and the squeaky wheels. Ignoring the hard working silent majority they often step on those people to promote their selfish agendas.

Today’s union philosophies, much like governments promote mediocrity. Examples are teacher’s unions, sabotaging public education for expansion of their own position, profit, politics and power.

Douglas Martin, Elmira Teachers Association President and Raymond Bryant, Superintendent epitomize union facilitated mediocrity in their September 18th and 19th, 2007 letters, extolling (54%) seven of thirteen Elmira schools are not on the under performing schools list. Banners hailing rapidly improving or high performing schools are facades, revealing the fatal education industry philosophy for show over substance.

Leadership seems infected with (IDD) integrity deficit disorder. Untrustworthy leadership requires checks and balances. We need leaders who represent the people, not their personal and/or professional agendas.


67

*** School districts, superintendents and boards marketing to manipulate rather than

communicating to inform has been my concern for which I have been mocked for more than a decade. James B. Reed in his January 2, 2008 letter pointed out hooliganism is highlighted at EFA, while ignored at Horseheads. School districts cover up problems and paint pleasant facades, hiding problems which cannot be resolved if not recognized.

Colleges and Universities fudge rape statistics to preserve clean images. Local schools gloss over the drug and alcohol problems to keep reputations neat and tidy, then trade discipline for drugs to control kids. They feed children junk food for cash and act surprised at the obesity epidemic.

Teachers complain unruly children are sent to administrators with no results. Teachers cannot complain and avoid responsibility. Their unions have lobbied for this liberal approach that fails to confront the guilty and protect the innocent. Teachers can confront this injustice, but fail to control their union’s abusive political agendas.

I restate my point, “There must be honesty in education! It isn’t there now!” Teachers cannot collect the booty pillaged by their unions and blame others for the union’s actions that are destroying the education system.

*** Carl Hayden’s school readiness project sounds good, but is based on an obsolete idea

about early childhood learning. More recent studies have pointed toward development from children’s play and just being a child as more nurturing of creativity.

Hayden hails we’ll see results early, just from the attractiveness of the program. Academics are more enamored with the looks of a program, quickly losing interest in results, attracted to show over substance.

All day kindergarten was supposed to be the fix. Now it’s pre-kindergarten. As each touted essential step fails, we add another. Next it will be pre-pre-kindergarten, or perhaps bypassing parenting altogether by institutionalizing children directly from the womb!

Failure to identify our public schools as the real weakness is the problem. Statistics show, early education isn’t the major issue. We keep up with better educated countries till the fourth grade. Then we fall behind rapidly. The longer children are in our schools, the worse they perform.

Our present system has educated most parents-to-be for at least twelve years and fallen short. What positive affects will this minimal intervention at the hospital have?

Cornell and Columbia Universities, education industry monoliths, profiting greatly from education failure, will track the efforts? After years of putting lipstick on a pig, can we trust them to assess honestly or competently?

A school superintendent once told me, “You have to expect researchers to have their own agenda.”

It really isn’t about truth, but satisfying insatiable greed!


68

***

Stop the rhetoric! Where’s the promised proof? A January 22, 2008 letter by Ben Riggs extols the School Readiness Project, like Carl

Hayden sold in June 2006, citing studies not facts, propagandizing the ground work for Universal Pre-Kindergarten (Universal Child Care). Mr. Riggs referenced a website that marketed the idea of Pre-K, but gave no evidence the Readiness Project or Pre-K really works!

Mr. Hayden promised tracking of the program, yet Mr. Riggs showers us with platitudes. Similarly, school districts institute programs with false promises of proof of effectiveness like Intensive Scheduling, Everyday Math, Quantum Leap and the International Baccalaureate programs.

Recent studies suggest that young children, not institutionalized, allowed childhood are more creative, therefore more opened to learning. Are we burning out babies with these regimented programs? Universal pre-kindergarten is just another education industry money maker/waster!

Mr. Riggs specifies that “quality” pre-K could be very helpful to the education of children. Wouldn’t “quality” kindergarten, first grade, second grade, etc. preclude the need for pre-kindergarten!

A lack of early childhood preparation is not the root cause of public education failure. An overall lack of quality in education promotes the destructive cycle of improperly educated students becoming ill-equipped parents.

***

A February 3, 2008 Leader editorial complimented the Horseheads School Board’s

propensity to add programs lightly mentioning consideration for the people financing them. Ineffective or inefficient programs are seldom, if ever fixed or dropped.

Board president Mark Brinthaupt once stated regarding a yearly stealth tax sheltered annuity slipped to a superintendent, “$5,000.00; it’s only pocket change!” A lifetime of state employment plus 20 years board occupation, Brinthaupt’s character contributed “a lack of results is priceless” attitude. His close relationship and spineless deferring to educators has promoted district mismanagement.

Serving with Brinthaupt, I pointed out slovenly approaches escalate with time. Ten thousand, fifty, then a hundred thousand becomes worthy of waste. Three million dollar budget increases become common place.

In 1970, The Horseheads School District enrollment peaked at 7780. Enrollment in 2006 was 4250 or a reduction of 3530, a 45% decrease. Has anyone seen a corresponding reduction of spending?

The 1973 budget was $10,410,000.00! In 1998 it was $38,500,000.00! In 2007-2008 it was over $63,000,000.00, a 61% increase from ‘98! This greed bought an indoor track, tennis court, golf facility and other toys. The Horseheads School District Country Club has cultivated the character of constant expansion and gluttony they teach.

Sports, music and additional extracurricular programs have likely tripled, yet the Teachers Union’s (NYSUT) misleading TV commercials throws guilt on the elderly


69

lamenting they want children to have what they had and depicts children whining, like spoiled educators, they never have enough.

Superintendent Marino assured the community would not be taken for granted. Bull Shit!!!!

***

The Star-Gazette seems slow on the uptake. February 22nd’s (2008) MISS, highlights Elmira School Board scheduling school crowding discussions discourteously late, suggesting why attendance at board meetings is low.

Discouraging board meeting attendance is standard for school boards! Corning’s bobble headed Greek Chorus, sitting in the audience, is allowed to ridicule those expressing concerns contrary to the board’s agenda. Feigning listening to the community using façade facilities planning committees is a trend.

Community letters concerning the lack of truth found at Horseheads School Board Meetings appear repeatedly. Dog and pony shows lead off, while important issues are buried till community and media leave.

February and March Star-Gazette articles discussed last year’s suspicious miscount of votes hidden by the Elmira district leadership. Similar miscounts and cover-ups occurred in Horseheads.

Four consecutive years of budget and board voting shenanigans in the Horseheads School District have practically been ignored. Improprieties included vote miscounts, voting machine errors, illegal campaigning; newsletters distributed in and emails sent from schools supporting desired candidates, educators personal, political and union agendas continually marketed in classrooms and at concerts. None are isolated incidents!

Standard operating procedures of dishonesty and cover-up are synonymous with our public education. Watchdogs are asleep; integrity dying!

*** To Internet Critics

Two hundred words in the Star-Gazette are inadequate to present or defend ideas to indoctrinated educators mindlessly echoing union and education industry dogma on line.

As a board member I presented many extensive written proposals addressing problems, with specific strategies and solutions. I began this journey with polite presentation, laboring, sacrificing much time to say things politely so as not to offend. Politeness was used as an excuse to ignore. I got entangled in “Political Correctness”, an academic contrivance to stall, delay, detain and derail progress.

Yes, I have become blunt, but if an idea is productive, should presentation matter? Often I was told by superintendents, administrators, board presidents and members, even local union presidents and teachers, “That I had many good ideas, but my presentation was wrong.” Undesirable presentation has also been used as an excuse to ignore. It only matters if the objective is the status quo.

Look at comments on line in the Star-Gazette. Educators are evident regurgitating education industry talking points. They personally attack instead of addressing particular issues. They take general statements personally, but seldom argue them on the education


70

industry level. They rarely present solutions as they accuse others, but reflexively make talking point excuses.

I always present solutions! Often they are honesty and integrity! Teachers complain students are not disciplined when sent to the office. Their unions

have set up the environment that exists in education and yet they chose to ignore that and blame others for the failings. Isn’t that the old shell game, hiding actions of the education industry collective by blaming others for their own failures.

Now let’s look at parents. Certainly there are many parents with poor skills. There are many more today. The education industry can take some blame for the epidemic of poor parenting. Liberalized approaches to education have destroyed discipline and therefore a good work ethic. Educator’s selfishness as a collective as displayed in many forums, including espousing personal and professional agendas in classrooms has nurtured a generation of poorer parents. They have been educated into parental weaknesses. This includes the banishing of common sense and integrity from the academic dictionary. While parents deserve some blame, educators are not without it.

I decided the education industry, two headed lack of integrity monster, one head arrogance, the other hypocrisy, must be fought. Educators opening their eyes to this would be the reentering of honesty and integrity into education. That is certainly a solution.

This is the last time I will defend my actions in this forum. While I applaud opened discussion and debate, even this forum has useful purposes, but often gets into pettiness. I step out with my ideas and take the criticism in my name. To discuss issues openly please call me.

***

PBS’s Nightly Business Report revealed education the second largest industry in our country! Healthcare is larger. Government mismanagement usurping both industries causes costs to skyrocket.

The late Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman in the 1950’s stated government management costs twice as much with half the effectiveness and efficiency of privately run industries. That means government run industries cost us four times more for the same result.

Massive education unions (NEA 2.7 and UFT 1.3 million members) and universities are engaging in a fierce fight for first place. More programs, less progress, is a winning formula for educators; failure aimed at expansion! Failure elicits cries for more ransom by educators, supposedly, “for the children”, but like any hostage taker really for themselves.

Failing education serves the education industry agendas. Good education, so important to democracy as revealed by Thomas Jefferson, threatens educator’s quest for socialism. Failed education, the indoctrination educators deliver, serves their socialist agenda.

Delivering faulty services nurtures mediocrity cultivating flaws of will and character in the human condition. Squashing individual strength of will and character, killing critical thinking, solidifies education industry control. Challengers to such leadership are dumbed down, indoctrinated to be less equipped to confront the destructive thinking of the education industry power.


71

This secures inept educators elitist position at the top of a mediocre society. The strategy makes sense if you lack the courage of your convictions. It makes sense to maintain a lazy, selfish and weak collective. It destroys democracy, freedom of speech and all our freedoms many died to secure.

CHAPTER 10. A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION WITH THE MEDIA Mr. David Kubissa Star-Gazette 201 Baldwin St. Elmira, NY 14901 September 16, 2005

Dear Mr. Kubissa; I enjoyed our talk in early July and our most recent one and did listen to what you had

to say. I began writing this letter after the July discussion. When people give me personal criticism I listen to it and evaluate their criticisms. I think you will see that in my recent letters to the editor our July discussion produced the types of changes you requested. I very much appreciate you printing my letters.

From those concerns you gave me about not enough specifics and constructive actions toward the Horseheads school board and district, I must point out, this is not the first time I have sailed this course. You see a recent sample (Proposal for a District Financial Audit and Consulting Committee) of the type of suggestions I have presented to the board for years. I have always supplied them with positive, productive and concrete ideas and specific and detailed plans to attain results. They attacked me with generalities, greater than the kind of that you have accused me of writing.

I do understand what you are saying about your newspaper and the guidelines you are laying out for me. You want me to propose solutions; more specific solutions than curtailing arrogance and hypocrisy. I understand that and will gladly meet those requirements! That was the course I always intended to take to no avail

Arrogance and Hypocrisy; Everyday Tools of the Education Industry

When I stumbled upon this behavior in education I told myself I must be seeing

things wrong. It must be my mistake. My vision must be clouded. This kind of dishonesty, arrogance and hypocrisy cannot exist in our public education system. I still question myself to this day, particularly when I am interrogated and my observations and conclusions are questioned or attacked. I go back within myself and review what I have witnessed. I go over the data and keep coming up with the same conclusions. I open the forum to talk with those who have accused me of being wrong. I seldom if ever have been given that opportunity for debate.

It became evident to me arrogance and hypocrisy were major obstacles inhibiting our school district specifically and our public education system in general from becoming better. In fact those behaviors were deteriorating our district and public education. Education myths perpetuated by the education industry use this arrogance and hypocrisy to intimidate the public making them afraid to confront. Not confronting the behavior becomes easier, because as you say, “We are not going to change people’s arrogance.” Also, there might be a price to pay for confronting. We risk our standing, our credibility or perhaps not being liked by many in the community.


72

However, the arrogance is not just one or two people. The arrogance is institutionalized at the board and administration level. It goes higher to the leaders of the education industry, unions, professional organizations and lobbyists. It is also found frequently among many of the frontline educators and teachers. They not only use this arrogance and hypocrisy to intimidate those that question, they teach it to incoming educators to perpetuate the style and strengthen the power it wields.

I have seen the most humble and harmlessly addle headed of board members quickly mold to this institutionalized arrogance and hypocrisy. The desire to be accepted and the normal fear of human beings of not being accepted causes them to go along with behavior that is not fitting of adults, let alone adults on a school board.

Most people are very sensitive to being called crackpot, troublemaker or boat rocker. When they are told they are destroying the school district, it bothers them and they back off. They don’t think to ask if this school district is so good, how could one person destroy it?

The school board, administration and many teachers and educators nurture the worst in people by this behavior, not the best. What does that say? It is an example that will be made evident and noticeable to the children.

News Media Supports Education Misbehavior Through Omissions

Newspapers and other media are not willing to confront behaviors exhibited by our school leadership. The Corning School District with its building plans is a case study as is Horseheads with its healthcare issue. You would look at each occurrence and fail to see the compilation of actions, the trend of behaviors that got us here. This shows a short sightedness we accept in our educators. These are not the only issues. There are many similar recurring problems in each district.

While I think you are correct in your guidelines, you may be short sighted to the solution to the problems. I am looking at what needs to be fixed to really change things. I have identified arrogance and hypocrisy to be major clots threatening the health of education’s heart. They create blockages that keep our public education system from regaining its health.

Confronting the Education Industry

You may deem my actions quixotic, but as an individual, that is the path I have developed and followed to fight the battle that has been presented to me. The use of arrogance and hypocrisy as the normal tools of doing business in education relegates integrity and honesty to extinction. This is destructive to education so necessary in a democratic society.

To concentrate on the small mechanisms that need to be fixed when I have been assured they have no intention of addressing any of them is really quite stupid. Wouldn’t you say? To continue developing plans and submitting them and seeing them rejected with a laugh makes me look more the fool than those actions you think are making me look the fool.

While you see my words as angry, and sometimes the blatant arrogance of district leadership does anger me, I would say my words are blunt statements of the truth. Still, I see humor in those seriously destructive behaviors. If I didn’t laugh often, I would cry and become depressed. Still, when I see such pride and self-satisfaction in people that behave


73

with unabashed arrogance and hypocrisy I will fight the damage they bring to the community.

However, now I no longer risk the meaning of what I am saying by softening the language. Truth is often depicted as anger; fighting words by those that would parse the truth. Perhaps it is short sighted on my part. Maybe it is that I have made numerous attempts to sit down with them and find real solutions to real problems as fruitless and part of their stalling, hiding and schmoozing techniques.

I am just calling them as I see them. I am not softening my words to make them feel better. They refuse to listen either way. If I soften the words they don’t hear the criticism. If I am blunt, they say they don’t understand. In either case they don’t want to hear what is being said, and make the process a huge ritual dance, a game to lay a smoke screen. In either case an excuse not to hear. I have no qualm about bringing a sledgehammer to their wall of ignorant arrogance.

The education industry attempts to make programs look like they are working, seldom making them so they really work. If programs don’t work, it means more money thrown at the problems. They have no real interest in goals that work. It is not as profitable. It takes arrogance and hypocrisy to carry out such a selfish strategy. Most frontline educators know this, but benefit too much to question it, even though they may not agree in principle.

Now I will address some specifics to the Horseheads School District. I could write down the whole trail of behaviors, but will not take all that time. I could send you a letter or a number of letters I sent to the superintendent and the board that outlined the trail if you wish. One reason I am writing this long letter, in addition to making my point to you, is it will fit well in my “Reflections of a Former School Board Member” (which you have received at various stages of development) in hopes of adding clarification to the overall discussion.

Giving Favors To Friends and Punishing Others

When Sharon Reed was dismissed from the position of Business Manager for the Horseheads School District, it started me again delving into the business of the district. I had dropped out to some degree for awhile. It raised a red flag, because I saw her as by far the most competent and honest person I encountered while on the school board. That comparison is not just a person mildly competent and honest amongst a bunch of dolts. I would have compared her with some of the best I had encountered in industry also. I saw behaviors on both the school board and administration that could easily dismiss someone for just those commendable characteristics.

Less than a year later a new business manager was hired. I was told he was a close friend of the superintendent. I really did not want to pursue that, as it came out as I was beginning to work with the superintendent on addressing some important issues with solutions. It bothered me, but I guess I was willing to fool myself viewing it as a sacrifice for a potential investment for progress to be made.

Then the superintendent moved payroll and purchasing to BOCES under the false premise it was a financial oversight suggestion of NYS Comptroller Alan Hevesi. It looked very much like the new business coordinator was being spared major responsibilities. We paid more for this guy; then we paid even more to send a major part of his responsibilities to BOCES.


74

When we saw him in action, many people attending the budget meetings, including myself wondered at his capabilities. The nature of this hire looks at the very least unacceptable, but certainly unethical and perhaps illegal. It clearly looks like cronyism: a leader giving a buddy favors.

I asked the superintendent about this issue. Others in the community questioned him about similar issues like raises within six months for the assistant superintendent and human resource manager. He ignored the questioners as though the questions had never been asked. This trail of nepotism is growing on almost a monthly basis. Letters to the board outlining this trail can be provided.

I think this behavior was encouraged by the fact they got away with lesser, yet similar behaviors. The public often does not know of these issues buried by the board and administration. Local newspapers print selective information presented strategically at board meetings or distributed to them by the school district leadership. Often the newspaper’s representatives aren’t there when community members do confront such questionable behaviors of board and administration during the time allotted at the end of the meetings.

Newspapers always report the tax increase and percentage, but seldom report the budget increase that is an important figure in watching the competency of the district financial management. These two figures should always be reported together.

After this all unfolded, I had to ask myself if perhaps Sharon Reeds positive levels of honesty and integrity were not the only reasons for her being dismissed. It may have made that injustice easier to carry out when the superintendent could do a favor for an old chum and put him in an $87,000 a year position where little would be expected. Fast And Loose With The Truth

Last fall when I was questioning issues with regard to the school board, your headline read, “Horseheads school superintendent answers residents’ concerns.” The superintendent’s explanation of reimbursement for BOCES rental before the public was totally inaccurate and misleading and he used your paper to perpetuate his misrepresentation. When I confronted the superintendent with it, he admitted he was wrong, which he has done on a number of occasions.

Being wrong is not an issue. Admitting it can be admirable. However, the superintendent plays fast and loose with the truth. If he gets away with it, it stands. If he gets confronted, he will admit the error face to face, and pat himself on the back for being honest. But, he will never correct the information to the broader forum he released the misinformation. He admits he misinformed in the small forum, trying to wash his hands so he feels better about himself. He leaves the lie out there to be believed in the broader forum because it helps his agenda. That is still dishonest even though he admits the error at some level. I sent material explaining this inaccuracy to your paper.

Other characterizations in that article were just as inaccurate because of misrepresentations he made at that meeting. Accusations he made to discredit me were similarly inaccurate. At the next meeting I addressed the board confronting them with these misrepresentations he made. I sent materials chronicling these incidents to your paper.

This playing fast and loose with the truth is very often done by the superintendent and the board to salvage questionable and indefensible actions. It is done even when there is much time to be better prepared. This goes far in characterizing this superintendent’s and


75

board’s credibility, and seemingly practiced laziness, lack of competence and arrogance. These are but two actions or incidents. I could cite pages, some of which you have

received over the last year or so. These two should raise questions as to the ethics and integrity of the leadership in the Horseheads school district. These two issues should cause those seeking the truth to dig further. They should raise the question, shouldn’t arrogance and hypocrisy be confronted?

Fast and Loose With Healthcare and The Budget Too

The superintendent told us that healthcare savings could only be addressed in contract negotiations. This was a gross misrepresentation of the truth that cost the school district millions. Early in 2004, a pharmaceutical benefits manager brought in to the district was shocked to discover 52% of the Horseheads School District healthcare costs are pharmaceuticals. This doubled the high of the national average range of 18 to 26%.

This year they are saying pharmaceutical costs are 38% of the healthcare budget. The truth is difficult to get hold of in the Horseheads School District. It is like trying to pull an eel from the water by hand. If the truth is somewhere between 38% and 52% there are millions of dollars to be saved.

This money was not and is not dependent on contractual considerations as insisted upon by Superintendent Congdon. This money was and still is on the table to be saved by merely a respectful and judicious use of the community’s money by the school district employees.

Failure to present the case for judicious use of healthcare to educators has occurred over the last twenty years. It has lead to mismanagement and misuse of the Horseheads School District healthcare privileges and funds. The emails, handouts and presentations from unit heads, done recently, a year and a half ago or in 2001, whenever it supposedly happened, were token efforts to cover their behinds. This was an opportunity for millions of dollars in savings that should have seen real and concerted efforts employed. Leaving a few million dollars on the table to be wasted was certainly a lame effort.

Generic Drug Use At The National Rate We Could Have Saved $2.7 Million,

Referring to the 52% figure, reducing drug costs to 42% could have saved $1 million, enough to sharply reduce a tax increase. Reducing drug costs to 32% could have saved $2 million, an opportunity for a tax cut. If generic drugs were used in the district at the high end of the national rate we could have at least gotten down to the upper average number of 26% which could have saved the district $2.7 million, sharply curtailing the $4.4 million 7.6% budget increase. Better than 26% is possible, particularly when employees see the savings with no change in the services they receive, potentially $3 to $3.5 million in just the one area. This saving was possible by employing common sense, frugal and respectful behavior toward the community’s money.

Information available over a year ago was ignored. If addressed assertively then, we might have saved a $1 million or more from the 2004-5 budget. We certainly would not have had to raise it the healthcare budget $1.8 million this year and potentially could have financed a reduction of $1 million or more.

Still, this should have been on the radar screen for years and perhaps has been ignored


76

like last year. If it had been managed properly since 2001, four years ago, $7 million dollars or more could have potentially been saved. If it had been noticed and addressed years before, many more millions of dollars of savings would have been made available, taking nothing away from the quality of education and services in the district. It could have reduced the growth of the budget and increases in taxes with no change in the services provided to the district. Many millions of dollars of the community’s money was practically flushed down the toilet.

Yet district leadership threatened the community with the abolishing of kindergarten, sports and music, requiring just a very small fraction of the money they wasted on the abuse of healthcare pharmaceuticals. They held the community hostage on a lie. Institutional Arrogance And Hypocrisy; Creating Failures In Public Education

I think institutional arrogance and hypocrisy are the catalysts at the source of major failures in the district and public education in general. Repairing a few internal mechanisms, even if we are lucky enough to succeed, we are not going to solve those problems. To be honest with myself, this is where I must seek solutions. To take any other tack, after this much time and the understanding it has brought, would be a token effort to addressing solutions. I don’t have the time or energy to waste.

I have seen the board lie and continue to upgrade the lie for years, even after some were exposed in letters to the editor. Then I have seen that lie finally amended, but watched them fabricate other lies to suite their agendas. They saw the amendment as a token of their honesty and expected dispensation to make the new lie okay. This showed me they could not recognized a lie when it was pointed out, and even when they recognized it, would not always acknowledge the lie.

The institutional dishonesty of the board of the last two administrations has been constructed foundation to roof. I have followed it giving examples to the public and your paper. Seeing the trend, common sense tells me it existed before them and has been around a long time. The dishonesty along with the arrogance and hypocrisy used to wield it with no shame has become an inherent tool, accepted by district leadership and education industry leadership. It is not merely nurtured it is openly taught and accepted!

It brings to the campuses of education much of what we say as a society, we disdain most. Educators certainly say they disdain these tools they use on a daily basis. These include intimidation: bullying! It deteriorates integrity, both individual and institutional. If integrity is not present in education, where are we headed? Lying, cheating and stealing all become tools of daily business in our schools.

Enron, Tyco, World Com, yes, this is a road I see the district on. Certainly the school district has not yet reached the destination those private companies have. Perhaps by most, because of the financial differences, they never could.

Still the school district appears to be on some of the roads those companies traveled. You’re talking about giving jobs to friends and family and allowing diminished responsibilities and additional perks for those people. This doesn’t appear to be honest. Not only wasting millions of dollars of the community’s money, but ignoring that waste and then consistently raising the budget far more than it needs to be to compensate doesn’t exude competence. Many more questionable issues could be listed.


77

As I cited a number of times, a former police investigator who worked on cases of internal corruption like Roslyn Long Island was asked by superintendent Congdon, “how does something like this happen?”

Mr. Hulslander said, “It starts with the little indiscretions!” This was an answer superintendent Congdon and the Horseheads school board did not seem to understand.

Last year I cited a myriad of what seemed like little indiscretions. This was not the starting point as I saw similar behaviors before when I was on the school board. District leadership has become emboldened because they have not been confronted. Local papers will not question a class of behaviors that has occurred time and again because it sometimes appears journalists and academics are hatched from a similar collegiate litter. With this familial relationship, if educators have self-serving intentions, who is to stop them?

While I made the point the financial indiscretions might make Enron worse case, the frequency of the abuses engaged by educators might very well put them in the same category. Perhaps only the money is different? Perhaps the only reason educators don’t abuse as much money, is because there is not as much money in the coffers to abuse. One could say this is why they like to mismanage the budgets, to make more money available for themselves.

Just yesterday I encountered some of the elderly in the district. They stated, “They could not trust the school district.” One of them went on to say, “you can’t trust anything anymore.”

She was right. You’d be a fool to go out wearing trust on your sleeve these days. Just think how futile that feels! You are elderly, perhaps alone and there is no one to trust. You can see the fear on their faces. When you have no one left to trust, how does that feel? What does that do to your life when you are old and left without hope of trust?

Then it even extends to your local school district screwing you every chance they get to perpetuate their own selfish motives. You can’t trust the numbers they give you, the explanations they give you, because you know they have often and would again lie just to advance their own agenda. They’d say almost anything to avoid or quell the problem with fast talk no matter how dishonest.

These are the people that trumpet they are the keepers of the future. That is why they should be paid more and more and more. They use the district budgets as their own personal grab bag, unabashedly filling their own pockets as though it is an entitlement they deserve for being so special, “educators”. Not “good educators” because dawning the mantel of educator automatically implies good. No, better than good, but sainthood!

If these are the generations of the “spoiled children”, is it any wonder? Indoctrinated, spoiled, adult, children have schooled our recent generations of children. Educated, certified and nurtured to reach and expect that sacred position. Selfish, mediocre, even lazy but not to be questioned because of the revered position they have constructed for themselves.

They constantly say the children are our future. That is not true. We are their future and they are the future of their children. We are deleting integrity, honesty and fairness from those futures. We are replacing them with the thug mentality of intimidation, deceit and selfishness. Outrageously, we are promoting this with our education system. Is not their arrogance and hypocrisy an important foe to fight?

Sincerely, Gerald J. Furnkranz


78

CHAPTER 11. SCHOOL BOARDS AND SUPERINTENDENTS

School boards have become impotent governing bodies of school districts. They lack the power, knowledge and integrity to carry out their oversight responsibilities positively. They are impotent because board members have surrendered themselves and their board to the education industry. They use excuses like there is nothing we can do because of state mandates, laws and unions and their contracts. They surrender their schools, children, communities and values because it is just easier to give in.

So, laziness is one reason for this surrender. It is easier to go along with the superintendent and education industry. You don’t have to do the homework, pay attention or put in the extra time necessary. You take everything they say as fact, truth, and vote yes for what they recommend.

Questioning doesn’t have to be serious or honest it is just a smoke screen to fool onlookers. Presentations from the educators are allowed to be sales promotions, commercials to endorse their agenda, again to fool people. This is not only done to fool the people, but it gives an opportunity for board members to allow themselves to be fooled. Their consciences remain at ease by consenting to be fooled by such “Dog and Pony” shows.

One board sage on his seat for more that twenty years would always defer to the educators, because, “they knew best.” Not that their presentation was convincing the program or suggestion was correct, but they were educators, there for a long time, so he would defer to them. It was easier for him to do that than think or confront.


79

Cowardice is another trait that allows board members to overlook facts for the education myths. Facing the powerful education industry frightens more powerful politicians. Board members fold like a cheap suit before administrators and teachers. Because of their laziness they do not have the answers to give intelligent arguments to even the stupidest rhetoric and talking points spewed by the education industry. The laziness and cowardice combined allow representatives of the education industry to get away with the weakest defenses of their indefensible actions of selfishness and incompetence.

Board members willingness to allow these ground rules eventually evolves to the nurturing of their own arrogance. They must begin to look at themselves as infallible and superior to accept the incompetence they allow in themselves, affecting negatively the educational institution for which they are responsible. Hypocrisy is not far behind. These leanings toward laziness and cowardice eventually produce incompetence because of inaction. Doing nothing and fearing to confront and be confronted eats away at the individuals and the board’s ability to accomplish. This leads to the impotence. An ego centricity nurtured in educators spills over to board members. Few are willing to admit incompetence or impotence. They need to believe they are public servants doing a job, not self-servants placating their own wants and needs.

Legal counsel for several area school districts, including Corning, James Young insisted Education Commissioner Richard Mills and an army of state lawyers were wrong in their interpretation of the law regarding complex Option 2 financing.

The Corning School District board president rationalized, “When you are on a board you rely on experts,” revealing the puppet like nature of his leadership vision, being led by the nose, following what the experts wanted. He certainly must realize such consultants (experts) are often hired to support their employer’s desires and sell them and the public what the board wants.

Among local school boards, as in this case, legal counsel more often substantiates the poor board behavior and decisions by attacking people and personalities rather than problems and issues. Unfortunately they frequently disregard what is legal, let alone what is right.

This behavior opens the door to dishonesty. Initially it is the dishonesty to oneself, which eventually evolves to a general acceptance of dishonesty. Then it seeps into every aspect of board leadership. Thus you hear them say things like, “You think we’re dishonest, you should see them.” Or often the justification, “everyone else does it,” and “We’re not the only ones”. These defensive or justification phrases are signs of dishonesty, and the incompetence, laziness and ego-centric nature they have evolved from.

Arrogance and hypocrisy become accepted management tools of those school boards. Therefore dishonesty is widely practiced making the school leadership one of low integrity, and also acceptable by normal practices. Is There Noise

Long has the question been asked, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there

to hear it, is there sound? One could ask the same question with regard to school boards. If school board members or a member of the community says something and there are no community members there to hear it, is there sound, or better yet, is anything really said.

I guess we’d have to take it one step farther. Even if community members are in


80

attendance is anything really communicated to them by the board. Since most issues voted on have little or no discussion in front of the public, the

community is very unaware of what is really going on. Even when there is discussion, board members mumble, making it impossible to hear, let alone understand what is being said. I have even seen board members mumbling pontifically with their hands covering their mouth as they spoke. Even board presidents have done this.

Meetings held in state of the art multimedia rooms, still have these communication failures. Sound systems, probably Dolby sound, found in the finest of theaters can’t carry the board’s voices to the people. The technology is used to dazzle and divert attention, not to communicate correctly.

Board members will tell you the community doesn’t come to the meeting because they are not interested, or they are so satisfied with the board’s performance. They would argue the fact the attendees cannot hear and even when something is heard, the public has no understanding of the context, has nothing to do with the public disinterest. Lack of debate, discussion and information has discouraged the public from attending.

So, while noise does come from the board, and I assume does even when no one else is there to hear them, communication doesn’t really occur even though noise does.

It’s almost like the information is plied and passed previous to the meeting. The evolution of the decision is not played out in front of the public. A choreographed rendition of the decision process is what the public is made privy to if anything at all.

Sure, there are the dog and pony shows to please the public and deflect from the real issues. A song, a dance, or even a commercial done for the school district by a student using the millions in multimedia equipment. All nice, warm and fuzzy, but devised to market a feeling to the community rather than communicate reality.

Papers passed, telephone calls made, emails exchanged and back door discussions in executive sessions, all tools misused by the school boards to deprive the community of seeing the process. Questions answered away from the public forum, done in the name of expedience, are conducted for far broader and more deceptive motives.

Remaining unaccountable for words said is one such reason. Hiding the patronizing attitude toward a public seen as unable to understand their lofty decisions is another. A laziness and lack of thinking with regard to board members is yet another thing they must hide. I guess it boils down to attitude. Arrogant and hypocritical board members, and unfortunately there are many of them, don’t want to be confronted or challenged.

Most board members like to make their votes free of any influence other than the superintendents. Being bogged down by ideas and conflicting arguments would only make their work harder. My god, they might have to think instead of being told what to do. What a Herculean task that would be. Questioning, formulating and decision making is toil beyond those of the school board member stature.

It is no wonder. They are right! They are always right! Also, they are righteous because what they do, they do for the children and that in no way could be wrong! Their motivation should never be questioned, they believe. So they never question themselves.

Going behind the closed doors of executive session, and illegally carrying out tasks other than personnel issues, contract negotiations and property sales, often occurs. It is used as an opportunity to impugn that community member that spoke up during the meeting with a very good and well meant question that made the board look bad. Or that person cross


81

examining them when an insufficient or illogical answer is given as often occurs. They can demean the person, devaluing their contribution to gain back the stature they feel they have lost.

They can sit on their duffs and mock good ideas and suggestions that don’t mesh with their own visions. They can dig away at the credibility of that person till they convince themselves it was a stupid question and was asked by a stupid person.

Even though they have almost complete control of the board meeting in public, it is not enough. It is still too risky and apt to cause damage to their image and egos. They still might be questioned to some extent and exposed.

In executive session they can hide out in the dark. They will not be challenged or held accountable for what they say. They can speak without thinking saying the most moronic things and not be confronted.

While I have seen verbal muggings take place in public, they can be conducted with far greater ferocity behind closed doors. In public they might occasionally find a person to stand up and confront them. Still, they control the conversation and will get in the last word.

They rule completely in executive session. They always win, against everyone.

They mock, deride and destroy reputations. They dictate how the board will view certain people. Depending on how tyrannical the administration is, they could be dictating how the district views those people.


82

While three issues are legal to discuss in executive session, even those issues are dangerous in the hands of a board lacking integrity. Benefits, gratuities, rewards, payoffs and wording can be placed into contracts that are very costly and damaging to the community. The community will never know until all the I’s are doted and T’s are crossed and the contract is signed into reality. Communities can be sold down the river and not know till it is too late, the contract already validated. Their lifetime healthcare for district educators is on such example.

Administrators can build their own wealth and benefits with never a consideration to the community. They can pad their retirement nest, which is the focus of most if not all superintendents.

So too can district personnel get pilloried in the court of executive session without a chance to defend themselves! Superintendents wield the power to defame, defraud and defrock an employee. They can prosecute their case behind the closed doors of executive session and never give the employee a chance to make their case and defend themselves. They can do this without the employee ever having a chance to face their accuser.

The public must take the district leaderships word for what has happened, because it is one of the confidential issues for executive session not to reach beyond the doors until after it is resolved. Then it is often hidden by legal agreements to avoid the eyes of the community.

They control the meetings, who talks and how long. They can address what is said without allowing rebuttal. Allow a rebuttal and give another senseless argument and dismiss it and move on, always having the last word.

They control the minutes interpreting the words said against them that best suites their needs. Molding the rhetoric against them and sculpting their rebuttals, they stay safe behind the fortress walls they have built. They control the newsletters, news releases to the newspapers and even get a yeah or nay say on letters to the editor sent to local papers. The playing field is certainly tilted in their favor.

They focus on the inaccuracy in a statement, even if it is only a literary comparison, as though that were the issue. A statement may be 98% correct, but they will attack the 2% inaccuracy to discredit the entire statement, hiding the truth that is behind it with a minimal, meaningless inaccuracy.

They can set up scenarios and stories that have no relationship to the truth and never be checked. Lazy and egocentric boards can easily allow this to happen. Behind the doors of executive session, they can make their own world where they mold right and wrong. They can perpetuate lies with such ease that even they believe them and their ego’s demand it, no matter who they hurt or how wrong they are.

They can support this with a network of papers passed, telephone calls made and emails exchanged. This is why integrity must be at the very foundation of a school board and a school district.

At the June 6, 2005 board meeting Mr. Roper from the community put it to the board quite accurately when he asked, “Do you really want the community input, or do you just want us here to listen to your decisions?” I am paraphrasing his statement because it was explained in much more detail. This same theme came forward from several community members when the board passed the increase cost for school lunches with one discussion at a meeting and the community could not even comment after the information was presented and before the board voted.


83

Board meetings have been run in a way that allows board members arrogant attitudes that verify the desire to have the public listen and accept board decisions. Board members would like to think their intelligence is so great, the community hangs on their every word and is grateful for their god like decrees handed down. (These attitudes are true of many educators also.) To them it is not conceivable that people sitting on the other side might have as much or even more intelligence or knowledge than themselves. Superintendent Searches - Integrity Again! (This article was sent to the school board as a letter during the superintendent search that brought in Bill Congdon.)

I went to the public meeting the school board held to develop the search criteria for a new superintendent. A search consultant conducted the meeting. He put up 3 categories for discussion. The strengths of the district, district needs and qualities we wanted in a superintendent.

An interesting discussion took place as we went over the strengths of the district and the needs of the district (perhaps weaknesses). Suddenly the meeting was over. I raised my hand asking, “Aren’t we going to discuss the qualities we want the superintendent to have?”

“We hit some of those in the last category (district needs),” the consultant reminded. “I know we did, but I didn’t voice my concerns,” I pointed out. “In fact that is the

main reason I am here. I think integrity is the most important quality a superintendent must have. Integrity of the leadership transfers to the integrity of the education and integrity is essential to a good education for all students.”

From behind me in the board/administration pack came the comment, “Yes, they have to walk on water!”

Afterward I went to the consultant who seemed very sincere to me. I expressed my concern again. Emphasizing the importance of integrity, I explained why I was so insistent.

He looked at me as though I had two heads. Then he began in a matter of fact lecture, “the résumé screening process I outlined should eliminate those people.”

While sincere, I could see he could not accept that education harbored as many good liars as any other industry and perhaps more because they were unwilling to acknowledge it. This creates a safe environment for them.

I pointed out, only outrageous breaches of integrity would be sorted by the résumé screening. Some candidates of poor integrity and good at it would easily pass the résumé test. If integrity was not mentioned consistently as criteria in the interview, and the board did not champion integrity, there would be no way it would become part of the process.

Integrity seen as walking on water is almost impossible to attain, so educators would rather not talk about it. They see themselves as naturally possessing it and therefore must possess it at its purest. Just to mention the word “integrity” is an affront: fighting words, an accusation they are lacking.

Because of this view, educators feel they can reject standards by which they should conduct themselves. They live in a world devised for them where they are special just because they are educators. The quality or better put, integrity of their work has nothing to do with it.

As a collective they can’t concede that they are imperfect human beings,


84

therefore cannot admit mistakes and failures. Integrity is something we strive for, but may never completely achieve. We all have break downs we must face. The striving, knowing and questioning is what keeps integrity alive.

This education industry approach assigns integrity to oblivion, an environment where striving to be better is quashed. That action seriously diminishes the integrity of the education system. Therein lays the problem with education in America and our district. Looking For A Savior

When a superintendent search begins, the board is looking for a savior. They want someone who will remove the weight of responsibility from their shoulders. They want a white knight they can trust to do the right thing, what is best for the children and the community. They surrender all their power to this person. They fear to question or confront, not wanting to offend the person that has been fawned over and put on the highest pedestal as the savior.

Board members want someone with the courage, power and integrity to make the right decisions for the children and community. However, these superintendents are but a serving arm of the education industry. Indoctrinated into the education system like any other educator except more so. As much as they preach for the children, they’re conduct is primarily for themselves and for their industry. If board members don’t think about it too hard, their indoctrination by the education industry can allow them not to see the selfish actions and motivations of administrators. The Choice

It was with great expectation I listened to the choice of the new superintendent in

February 17, 2002. Bill Congdon had great potential as a superintendent, and he brought that potential to the Horseheads School District; to reach, even surpass the legendary competence it once held. He brings integrity to the position; something it has lacked for quite awhile.

However, I see a threat to that potential. That threat is the integrity deficit as the board applies its leadership. The inability to implement processes and make them work makes the board capable of only voting money to an issue or problem, to feed its ego. With little ability, therefore interest in making things work money continues to be the boards ineffective answer to every problem and always will be.

While Bill Congdon has exhibited the ability to implement successful programs, without the board leading the way, we are left to the unwavering strength of Mr. Congdon's own integrity. He alone must then maintain the course of effectiveness and efficiency to look for reallocation of resources and cost reduction when possible.

That would be difficult for any superintendent to do, even if the board is a neutral or null force. It means the superintendent as an individual must keep very focused on those goals to push all his energies and resources toward meeting them.

If the board leans heavily toward actions without integrity, as it has in the past, it could sabotage his efforts, altering courses of integrity like a dragging anchor. It can destroy great potential that could mean so much to our school district.

There is also the issue that Mr. Congdon is already well liked. The board and the "For The Children Banner", it wraps itself in to excuse the many lapses of integrity, could


85

easily excuse giving up the store as it did over the last five years. The legacy of our last superintendent was to comfortably feather his retirement nest.

He ran away leaving little positive, while the board slapped him on the back, congratulating him every step of the way.

While I have high hopes in regard to the potential of the possibilities, I see the snobbery the board engages in keeping it from meeting that potential. Unless you stop patting yourselves on the back for just being there and begin to hold yourselves accountable to set and meet goals, the community will see more of the same.

Our new superintendent is fairly new to being a superintendent. He will need help. He will need to be given the leeway to keep on the path of integrity because it is essential to good education for all. You can't expect each superintendent to be a savior. They are not as we have been so often reminded.

You have wasted the last five years failing to build leadership strength into the board. You are going to have to do it now if you really want improvement. But, if you are satisfied just voting money to ineffective programs and just maintaining the status quo for your profession, you clearly have the ability to meet that goal.

Given any thought to the subject, educators, board members and superintendents must see the hypocrisy of their behaviors. To go on in such a way, their conscience must become calloused to avoid seeing their hypocrisy. They do this through arrogance, supplied to them by their industry.

The industry tells them how wonderful they are. They are the future of the country because they are molding the children who will be that future. They are told they could never be paid enough for what they do. They are given the impression just being an educator makes them special. Success or accomplishment in that role is of little importance.

When educators spend 18 years being indoctrinated in schools, and then the indoctrination continues when they enter the artificial working world of academe, these educators are not thinking, questioning human beings as they need to be. They are lemmings, sheep, following the industry where it leads them for their own profit and power. Robotic automatons that will become programmed enough in their actions and teaching ability to be logically replaced by a computer.

The renunciation of responsibility by school boards places the power clearly in the hands of the superintendent. If the superintendent is self-disciplined to the strongest integrity, they may be able to carry out duties honestly and fairly to all who depend up the educational institution. Such strength and self-discipline are rare among education leadership.

But remember, superintendents are molded by the same education industry that has intentionally formulated the weak educator. It is very unlikely that kind of integrity will exist. Actually, the odds are very much more in favor that level or even a sufficient level of integrity will not exist.

This means superintendents given unlimited power will lean much more toward selfishness and abuse of power. Such power, as in the political world will be used for personal benefits and rewarding cronies, cronyism, that goes along with the dishonesty of the leadership. The developed arrogance and hypocrisy of both board and educators nurtures these behaviors in the wrong direction, heading the educational institution leadership toward the road to corruption.


86

Such unbridled freedom and power without question usually ends up in only one place. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupt absolutely.” This is why the education system in America is performing at such low levels. Its goal is not a good education for the children, but money and power for educators. They are making an elite place for themselves in society. This requires more money and more power to grow bigger.

The education industry grows bigger through failure. Education isn’t working and the cry goes out for more money to fix the problem. More money is thrown at the problem. A corrupt education industry sees the money thrown that way as fixing the problem. More money is thrown again. It means more jobs, more union members and more power for the industry. The cycle continues paying homage to the education system with more and more money, rewarding “elitist intellectual bottom feeders,” sabotaging our children’s education for profit, power and placement in elite society. The Superintendents Song and Dance (The 5 M&Ms)

1.) Manipulate the Moment (Say whatever you need to say to get through the moment.)

2.) Market the Mix up (Keep people off balance with constantly changing banter.

When caught being dishonest, just say it is a mistake.)

3.) Manage with Misinformation (Attack the truth as lies and truth tellers as liars, using lies yourself)

4.) Misrepresent the Movement (Benchmark against easy opponents)

5.) Mismanagement discovered Move on (Get out of the job before the reality of your

incompetence sets in sets in)

Retiring Superintendents Brag About Expansion, Not educational Success

When superintendents resign for retirement or because the community is beginning to

see through them, they are always given space in the local newspapers to assess their reign. I have noticed a trend in this. They mention programs implemented, never assessing the success of those programs. They also mention building projects which cost the district, raising taxes and debt. Often they are failed building projects that were seen to be unnecessary by the next superintendent.

If you look at their accomplishments, they involve expansion. Often when student population is shrinking, they are promoting expansion. The actions of which they are proudest usually have nothing to do directly with educational success. The failure to educate also promotes expansion of the education industry. Expansion is their primary goal.


87

Superintendents, A Constructed Weakness in the Education Industries Desire for Perpetual Expansion

While superintendents are very much educated, it seems they are educated in very narrow and limited directions. Schmoozing and politics seem to be hit heavily in their learning career. Getting budgets passed, though not necessarily good and honest budgets are another major segment of their skill set. Using intimidation when using schmoozing and politics don’t work also seems to be part of a standard arsenal of learned talents.

Superintendent’s financial skills seem only to reach the extent of raising taxes and soliciting more money from the state and federal government. That’s why grant application has become and actual profession in the education industry. Either method dictates they are extracting the money from the pockets of the community.

In educator’s minds, more money is the only way to make up for the shortfall in results by the education industry. Reassessing, honestly evaluating and strategic planning have no place in their money-centered and self-centered approach. Efficiency, effectiveness, and reallocation have no significance in their strategies of quantity over quality. After all, the quantity over quality approach itself, dictates more money be added and does not require results.

These skills seem so standard from superintendent to superintendent that one must surmise these are the skills taught throughout their education career. Specifically they must be honed in the postgraduate, graduate, PHD degrees and NYS certification, fortifying these limited and rather shallow skill sets. These skills are all geared toward carrying on a leadership charade rather than making significant substantive, productive and lasting marks on the education system.

We are told we need to pay top dollar to get quality in the superintendent position. Like the rest of the education industry, it seems the more we pay, the less we get in return. This is visibly true with superintendents. We pay top dollar for heavy weights and get lightweights! No, flyweights!

We are told the pool is drying up, so we must pay more for a good one. However, the pool is shrinking and what is left is polluted. The education they receive, though extensive, even inflated or over blown, is far from adequate for the job. It’s not so much not enough time is spent, as it is the brain power required to attain the heights of the profession is minimal. The education industry has dumbed down education in general.

They have dumbed down their own requirements to allow an easier path to attain greater credentials for increased pay and greater power. A majority of education diplomas are little more than bought and paid for credentials similar to many scam type universities. Except the time spent is used to indoctrinate educators into their professions rather than educating them to be more competent.

So, as the pool dries up, we are taking these depleted, and oxygen deprived fish flopping around in the puddle and we insist we must pay more for a good one. Sadly there does not appear to be a good one to be found in the mass of flopping flesh. All the money in the world is not going to make one of those dying fish into a good superintendent. So we make bad investments in one superintendent after another.

Each one passes through districts, to further feather their retirement nest, mucking up districts, making the districts more ineffective and superintendents commanding more money for it.


88

From the constant performance seen in ones own district and surrounding districts, this is as much as the community can expect. These administrators are so focused on their own financial advancement they have nothing left for the finances of the district. As you will see in the case studies, millions of dollars were wasted in the district. Places where millions could be easily saved were sacrificed for the tens of thousands the administrators desired for themselves.

Why, because expansion is another of the skills these superintendents excel in. This expansion contrived to benefit the education industry and themselves and for no other reason. An expanding district to them means they are worth more. They judge themselves on the size of the budget they manage, or more appropriately mismanage.

Building expansion even if unnecessary is a priority. For instance retiring superintendents; Reester from the Horseheads and Trombley from Corning, both cited building projects to be their accomplishments in their respective districts. In both cases, most of the building was cut short as not really necessary, because student population was decreasing not increasing. The legacy they lauded was proved unnecessary after they left. So, what was their legacy? Probably nothing, or something negative. We paid top salaries for performance that left no positive sign after they left.


89

This is one piece of information superintendents are well versed in, how much they can get back from the state for such projects. They will tell us we will only have to pay so much, when the money from the state is paid by us also. Though they pretend to know the numbers, they are seldom calculated or applied correctly when presented to the public, so the local responsibility is always higher than they are told by the district leadership. (the superintendent)

Another way to expansion is just plain mismanagement of the budget. Sloppy and lazy handling of the districts money will lead to increasing taxes and larger budgets which tells these superintendents they are worth more. Wasteful spending, by failing to keep an eye on expenses or even ignoring areas of increasing expenses, like the Horseheads superintendent did in 2004 with healthcare pharmaceuticals. Seeing they were way out of line with national figures, he avoided addressing millions of dollars in achievable savings for no reason. Then he lied to the public about the need for a 7.6% budget increase that also increased taxes for the community.

Superintendents are well equipped for useless expansion and needless upgrade of building, but really have no ability for implementing educational improvement. They have the skills to sell the public the latest education quick fix or miracle cure, but do not possess the skills to make them work. A few years later, they will again sell the next education industry cure all and attempt to band aid their failed system designed to fail. Another part of the cycle of failure, they’ll say, “We can’t think about the past! We must move to the future.”

Unfortunately with failure so profitable for educators, the future is the past. Nothing changes, because it is designed by educators not to change and education industry leadership embraces this methodology of the status quo.

Unnecessary and failed programs help to expand the education industrial empire. Programs cost more money. Failed programs mean other programs must be instituted to make up for the failure. However, the sloppiness does not allow for analyzing the failed programs and removing them for reallocation of resources, but keeps the failed program and adds another program to fill the hole of failure. The hole gets bigger and more inferior programs are thrown into the hole to pretend an attempt to fill it.

Yet, with the established attitude, that program is designed for failure also. It is a scenario for constant expansion, adding another program to fill the gap of a failed program, which is still being used and financed, with a program designed and destined to fail, so it too will bring on another program destined to fail. This is a business plan for expansion that would work nowhere else but in education and government. Basically, superintendents, our educational leaders themselves are designed for failure.

Failed leadership of school district requires more money, their major concerns. Larger budgets expand their value in their own minds. Their goal is a cycle of failure. They’ll tell you they are committed to the education of children. They’ll get teary eyed when they talk about them. They’ll hug a child to get their point across. Like a politician kissing a baby, they’ll do what is needed to perpetuate themselves and the profession that has allowed them such success with so little to offer and even less for which to be accountable. Dishonesty and phoniness is at the foundation of education leadership and superintendents.

The Summer of 2006 Elmira Superintendent Raymond Bryant bemoans real-estate agents selling the Horseheads School District as the district of choice.


90

Most districts, like Horseheads do not communicate to inform, but market to manipulate. Superintendent Bryant similarly oversells with wild exaggerations, “We are a community with great schools getting better!”

Horseheads School District Superintendent William Congdon stated, “We spend all our time praising our own virtues, but we certainly don’t talk down anybody else’s school.” Utilizing a convenient version of “benchmarking”, the district puts itself on a pedestal, bragging by utilizing derogatory comparisons to local districts.

Former Board President John Abbott discussing the renewal of state dispensations for block scheduling, said, “We thought it would prevail in the state by now!” Horseheads unabashedly sold unproven virtues of block scheduling to other districts, like a snake oil salesman’s miracle elixir. Congdon bet his reputation on the intermediate school. As with block scheduling a lack of honest data leaves the community in the dark, a sales tactic prevalent in the education industry.

Professionally obligated, superintendent’s manufacture the mythology of non existent education quality, employing belittling comparisons to demean, elevating themselves. Public education has rested on its laurels for years, worshipping show over substance.

In June 12, 2007 Horseheads Superintendent Ralph Marino lauded administration and

board efforts, maintaining “programs” while focusing on fiscal responsibility. Maintaining programs for programs sake instead of effective and efficient programs is not a commendable goal.

Fiscal responsibility is not a suggested 5.88%, $3 million budget increase reduced one percent because additional state contributions were lifted from our other pockets.

Board candidates asked if they thought this year’s vote would be honest, answered an unequivocal “Yes”. Why were erroneous voting counts veiled, and false information fed to the local media, though they changed nothing? Habitual dishonesty is not easily cleaned up!

Assistant superintendent June Lilley is being whisked out of the district after only fifteen months. This is too similar to the dismissal of Business Manager Sharon Reed in the dark of night after the 2004 budget vote. Competence and honesty are grounds for termination in this district. Sharon Reed is now CFO of Schweizer Aircraft.

Superintendent Marino assuring the community they will not be taken for granted sounds sincere? Most superintendents; sophisticated, practiced, politicians have previously propagandized similar promises. Behavior should raise questions! Marino has already taken the community for granted, falling into the routine of marketing to manipulate rather than communicating to inform!

Continued dishonesty, exemplified by board and administrators participation in 2006’s epidemic of illegal campaigning, coupled with recent shenanigans sadden me! Shrinking voter turn out supports an education legacy of dishonesty for our children!

Both WENI’s Paul Lyle and The Leader’s Bob Rolfe recently exposed Corning

school district weaknesses like mysterious resignation syndrome. Similar incidents have history in Horseheads. Axing people without explanation encourages cronyism, a corruption present in both districts. Citizens are finally heeding Sylvia Huber’s warnings of serious education leadership degradation.

Inept leadership is responsible for the failing education system. Cloned substandard superintendents; manufactured weak leaders indoctrinated and certified in the education


91

industry agendas at generous salaries, lack the competence to move education forward. Programmed to the status quo, their consistent failures expand the education industry, catalyzing the call for more funds to fix it. Incompetence aids their personal and professional agendas; profit and power.

The Corning lineup, Cuppola, Trombly and Staples led a downward spiral like the Horseheads rogue’s gallery of Reidy, Reister and Congdon, seeming systemic. Albatrosses around the community’s neck they implemented numerous programs, costing millions, having no positive affects (perhaps negative), on children’s education.

Impotent boards lacking valor, values and vision are equally to blame. They throw themselves at the mercy of these manipulative superintendents, expecting savior like qualities from production line pressed tin leadership; who are merely sophisticated, practiced, politicians. These charlatans are allowed free reign.

High district values and integrity must be well established by the communities. School boards must support and maintain the community ethics, institutionalizing positive principles and avoid indoctrination in the inherent arrogance and hypocrisy of educators. This must be done to restrain and guide the abundant substandard and feeble education industry leaders. Superintendent Collective: Playing Defense

BOCES Superintendent Robert J. Reidy's words in the September 2, 2001, Star-

Gazette on the higher state standards cannot help appealing to common sense. Yes, a more deliberate movement toward the Regents' goals seems logical. Precise adjustments of mechanisms to address the problem areas are necessary.

Then, one must read those words in their entirety. Notice of this new initiative was announced in 1994, seven years ago. It asked for results to be achieved by 2005, four years away. Is a two year extension request just hedging?

Under many circumstances such an extension could be acceptable. However, education's record indicates this to be merely another stall, like defenses in football, stringing out the play till it fizzles out at the sideline.

Education leadership, superintendents specifically instinctively employ these delaying tactics. They have applied education in a defensive mode protecting the comfortable niche they have built for themselves in society. Make no mistake. This education system is not for the children. It is built around the wants of educators.

When Superintendent Reidy talks about looking at the data to help implement programs to assist students better, I am reminded of a discussion we had on research. My concern about biased presentation of data was met with his statement, "You have to expect researchers to have their own agenda."

I must ask is this new analysis of data going to be used for better education decisions or to further the education industry’s agenda. Is it going to be used to solidify the powerful place educators have built for themselves in society? History would suggest self-interests are their primary concern.

Mr. Reidy's baby, intensive scheduling remains unproved after more than ten years. Yet, it has been sold to schools as effective.

Staff development and training have been a buzzword for at least twenty five years now. Though ballyhooed, the public has seen little results with regard to the quality of


92

education. What happened to the versatile educator trained to adapt to meet student’s needs? Why should we expect anything more than stubborn rigidity now?

The new standards have been out a long time. Why, seven years into this task is alignment with curriculum a major issue? Even if baby steps were taken initially, we should be able to achieve a gradual alignment of curriculum shortly.

Reallocation (redistribution) of resources while a logical way to achieve results, it is as foreign to education leadership as is spending wisely. Over the years many ineffective programs have remained active because leadership doesn't know how to evaluate their effectiveness or chooses not to. If they don't evaluate them, new programs are piled on top of the ineffective ones to solve the problems previous programs failed to solve. We add a new one and kept the old one that failed. This expands education securing their stronghold.

All the area schools have had massive investments in technology. While they planned the acquisition of the technology, few had a practical plan to implement its use. Much of this equipment has been sitting around for years, becoming obsolete, while the vision of how to use it to educate children is noticeably absent.

Still, technology, often referring to computers, is not the "quick fix" educators seem to think. While it is a tool that can increase productivity of what the mind creates, it cannot create for the mind. It cannot teach the mind how to work. In fact, the computer has the ability to take once creative processes that exercised the mind and turn them into the mundane mind numbing production processes of the assembly line. This will stunt the development of children's ability to think.

Dr. Reidy has presented us with the same arguments, perhaps excuses he and his superintendent associates have been giving us for years. After all, it is their dismantling of the system that has required the state to step in with these standards.

Unfortunately they have been educated... I mean indoctrinated to run the education system for their own ends. They are degreed and certified in schmoozing and bureaucracy. While their rhetoric seems logical, education leadership does not possess the skills to take those words in any direction but the same old one scam.

Dr. Reidy stated on behalf of local superintendents, "We believe our proposal maintains the integrity of our standards initiative."

Of course it does! They have strung out integrity till it means perpetuating a dishonest status quo.

Integrity has been given a minor role if any in these standards, because it has no role in present day education. How can there be decent education without integrity? If truth and honesty are not the foundation of education, what is being taught in our schools.

We need to go on the offense and create education with integrity. Education leadership must stop playing with their profession and overhaul the phony system exploiting our children. That may require getting diverse, visionary leadership from places other than the status quo education factories.


93

Blinded By The Money When the Elmira Heights school board met for its preliminary budget meetings, to

begin serious talks on steeply escalating property taxes, the superintendent announced, “we are going to have to get good numbers.”

With the property tax and budget escalation seemingly out of control, you’d think good numbers would have been available at the very first meeting. Even that thinking plays into the hands of educators that use sloppiness to cover their laxity in doing their jobs. The budget had been voted down the previous year.

It seems to me every budget should be approached with good numbers. When times are good, the finances should be handled as carefully as when times are bad. If approached that way, those bad times might not be as bad.

Unfortunately good times seem to signal spending waste. Spending waste then becomes the norm and educators can’t seem to break away from it. They are taught it. It is ingrained in them.

His announcement when the community voted against a study on a district merger that “the only options were to increase taxes or get more money from the state”, reflects the objective of this careless approach. Effectiveness and efficiency were options never placed on the table.

Proper management of money and programs takes a back seat to the black magic mode of the education industry. Keeping it all in some black box allows educators the luxury of seeming almighty with little room to be questioned.

So often it is said in education the professionals (experts) need to make the decisions. The truth is, they have been making the education decisions for the last 30 years. Their poor decisions have put public education in the crapper.

In searches for superintendents the cry goes out there are few good candidates. In the Horseheads search there were thirty. The newspapers say there used to be more. Without the ability to lead to effectiveness and efficiency, the pool of superintendent candidates is educated to be substandard.

No matter how many candidates were available the vast majority would be inferior. Educated, whoops, I mean indoctrinated to their professional loyalties, not educating, they are inherently second rate. Independent thinkers are considered renegades, cast out by their education industry peers.

We actually need people from outside education to enhance the vision and escape the bias, prejudice, indoctrination and corruption of the education industry. One aspect of this will probably be to build discipline. We need something more in education than the professionals who have evolved little beyond the spoiled juveniles they nurture by example. Leading to Change: Beyond Wishing

If you look at school districts, they are a microcosm of the education industry. They exhibit the same problems that are deteriorating our education system, but on a smaller scale.

While the Horseheads School district leadership backed off moving sixth graders to the middle school, it was only after then superintendent Reester saddled up his excuse to ride away from any failure achieving the new state standards.

"Statistically, we really have no proof that a new configuration would make a


94

significant educational difference," Superintendent Reester said. Still he went on saying, "But, if in three years a marked change has not taken place in our eighth grade scores, then the board and all staff should consider a move to a different configuration."

Changing configuration as a substitute for taking specific action to solve problems is like being blindfolded and throwing a dart at the board. District leadership seems to lack what it takes to raise their own standards.

Rolling the dice on some unproven theory increases the odds of failure of any change. Without strong leadership guiding, the changes will not make a difference. With strong, guiding leadership, the configuration changes are unnecessary.

A year after intensive scheduling was implemented, a strong advocate hailed the effect it had on reducing disciplinary problems. Art Kendall, a board member asked, "didn't we strengthen the rules and increase enforcement at this same time?"

The advocate answered, "yes, but we couldn't have done that without the schedule changes."

Why? Why must a major shakeup be the only way to institute needed change? Why must a whole school be disrupted, when focus on the problem area would be more productive?

Initiating meetings between teachers (communication) in those grades involved should have happened long ago. Making curricula and textbooks consistent between elementary school buildings throughout the district should have been standard operating procedure, not a recent change. Most of these changes are merely common sense, not rocket science.

The system has evolved weak leadership that sees material ways to institute change. Change is always addition, getting bigger. It seldom if ever appears as reallocation, replacing something that doesn't work with something that does or getting better.

If education leadership spent less time scamming and scheming and more time planning and producing, the education system would be less vulnerable to criticism of failure, which it deserves. Geese Going South Along With Our Schools

It appears School Superintendents fly through this area like geese in the fall. They stop, fill their bellies, leave their crap and fly on to a comfortable retirement in milder climates. Their crap is not biodegradable. Much of it we will have to live with for years to come. This has become a trend, not the exception.

These superintendents educated less for production and much more to promote their professional and personal interests, already represent a leadership group in which the bar is set dangerously low. Pulling a superintendent from the District of Columbia School District, legendary among those national education failures, on a par with New York City School Districts and the California Public School Systems, seems a strange fishing hole from which to pull a healthy catch.

It’s like pulling a back up quarterback from a losing semi-pro team expecting positive performance in the NFL. The odds are pretty slim. Elmira has experienced as much incompetence at the position as any district. It runs rampant throughout districts in the county and state. The education of superintendent’s is substandard! The education industry encourages mediocre performance because it brings money to their industry. How could


95

these education leaders be anything else but substandard? They don’t have to be here long before they sing the same old song, “we need more

money from the state or we have to raise taxes.” Though an extreme case, the plundering of the Roslyn Long Island School District of

$11.2 million by its leadership, the attitudes that led to such corruption are pervasive in most school districts. Educator’s sense of what is owed them makes each step in a corrupt direction much easier and takes their focus off education success.

The educator’s mindset is the districts are there for them. They come in with promises, making formularized changes before they know the problems. They schmooze themselves to as big a retirement nest egg as they can, then slip out the back door before the community knows they’ve been had.

Integrity Should Be Policy: The Responsibility of the Board How often I have heard the school board sages say it is their job to establish policy

and the superintendent’s job to lead us to the established goals within the framework of the policies set by the board. From there the board seems to wash its hands in the goings on unless it involves gossip or local intrigue.

Though the establishment of policy to most board members seems to be voting to implement all the policies the administration puts before them. Vision, thought and ideas do not seem to be part of the board mandate.

They dismiss their leadership responsibilities and pass them off to the superintendent. They lazily sit back and allow themselves to be blown in whatever direction the administration wishes. This feeds their egos without ever having to question their own competence. They ignore integrity and honesty as though it is present without any nurturing. It is easier to assume everything is happening in the proper manner.

Integrity is a matter of policy! It is practiced or it isn’t! Though it may be a more nebulous, philosophical aspect of policy, the board has a major influence as to whether it is implemented or not. Without leadership from a board, integrity stands a good chance of being left by the wayside. That leadership first requires practicing integrity. Second it requires the board holding administration (management) accountable to practice similar behaviors.

If a board does not take a leadership role in this matter, they are setting the policy for a lack of integrity. They are establishing a policy where integrity is undesirable and they have taken a leadership role in promoting that. Setting Performance Expectation For School Board Members.

Members of school boards are told from day one how special they are. Their special status comes from just being there, the giving of their time, whether productively or not. It could merely be a grazing ground for their egos, but still they are held in high esteem, further feeding out of control self perceptions. This certainly sends the message expectation for performance is low.


96

If board members vote for what administrators want, they are given pats on the back and treated like good little lackeys by administrators. If they question and balk at what is being pushed though, they will be ostracized and punished. The rewards for a shallow approach to school board responsibilities are far more desirable to the majority of community members on school boards than the few who question and confront.

It is not desired school board members think. It is desired and professed they should not. That is for the educators to do. They are only supposed to oversee. The education leadership will tell them what to think. Being robots is made very enticing to these types of board members. They will sit on the board, with nothing to do but vote money to projects and look down on the rest of the community and make themselves feel superior. They will be patted on the back by education industry leadership. Lazy, clueless and self-satisfied, they will vegetate, their bottoms growing larger, while they bask in themselves.

It is not wished that they question and challenge, even though questioning and challenging can be a healthy process. Even the New York State School Boards Association strongly promotes going along to ensure smooth sailing under the guise of board loyalty. They promote avoiding creating an uncomfortable atmosphere cause by questioning, confrontation and disagreement. They suggest it can lead to incivility.

In essence, we need school board members who think. We need people with vision beyond squeezing as much money from the public a possible. School board members must possess more than an ego that makes them feel superior for being on the school board.

School board members that inherently look down on community members that


97

disagree should never be on the board. Those afraid to argue openly and civilly for what they believe are hiding something, and what they are hiding is probably not healthy for children’s education.

School board members should never be elitist; feeling their ideas cannot stand scrutiny and critiquing from the public. The tuning of ideas is what makes visions into reality. It can be the difference between just another failed program and a success that helps create a quality public education system.

They must be doers, planners and capable of reaching the goals those plans set. They must have vision, a sight beyond the superiority and personal pleasure the position on the school board seems to give them. School boards need people capable of rolling up their sleeves, dirtying their hands and accomplishing. They can do without those that sit scratching their butts, looking down on anyone that would challenge thinking.

School boards need more than pompous procrastinators that look down on community members as a matter of personal satisfaction! School boards need members that can do, accomplish and build, not ones that practice gossip, elitism and snobbery and use a do nothing leadership to fail to challenge themselves, thus avoiding failure and raise their self-esteem.

To set up boards to be good little soldiers going along with administrators is to set up public education for failure. It breeds mediocrity and less into the system. The pool of ideas becomes shallow, much like the gene pool from family intermarriage. The pool becomes stagnant and stale. The water becomes cloudy and even begins to become self-polluting. The system no longer remains fresh and becomes defiled, an unhealthy stench permeating the environment.

A good school board must keep the environment innovative and inventive. Clean, fresh air and ideas must be freely circulating through the halls of knowledge. Not just a diversity of people, but diverse ideas, debate and visions. It must reject elitism, partisanship and politics that become destructive to the education systems. Constant improvement must be the goal and status quo the bane. Integrity must be the foundation of the system.

A good school board must be a leadership group. They must set the tone for expectations the community and district have for nomadic superintendents that are looking for a retirement windfall. They must signal integrity and competence are what is necessary for leadership coming to educate their children.

How can boards expect when they cannot produce? How can they expect others to set and reach goals when they themselves are not capable of doing so? How can they demand performance when their own is by far substandard? These are intricacies of leadership that school board members and education leaders must discover, if education in this country is to produce and help this country reach the potential it has. March 17, 2006 Dear Board Members;

In my March 15, 2006 letter to the Horseheads School Board regarding hiring

Doctor Coppola, the former Corning School District Superintendent, as a consultant to search for a new superintendent, I thought I might have presumed too much. I again questioned myself, wondering if I was seeing things in the shadows that weren’t there.

Then I looked at the minutes from the February 27, 2006 School Board Meeting. It very much looks like the board went into executive session to discuss his hiring. I don’t


98

believe that is an issue that should be discussed in secrecy behind the closed doors of executive session. The details of such an arrangement should be discussed completely in public session.

After almost an hour in executive session, at 10:41 PM, the board then came out and voted on hiring Dr. Coppola. Those attending from the community were long gone. It very much looks like this hiring was sneaked through in this shady process.

Add to it that a special meeting was set up on a Saturday to interview Dr. Coppola. It appears there was no notification of that meeting in the Star-Gazette. One cannot help but get the feeling that suspicious dealings are again taking place in the management of the Horseheads School District.

On top of that, at the March 13, 2006 meeting, the cost of this agreement was requested. The response was the superintendent, administration and board didn’t know. How could this be voted on without knowing what the cost would be or could be?

My letter of March 15, 2006 explored the competence of Mr. Coppola for the job. I wonder, does Mr. Coppola represent individual’s seeking employment? Your behavior once again gives credence to the observations I have made. I questioned the similarities to other district appointments smacking of cronyism.

Employing BOCES for free seems to make more sense even if BOCES was at the same level of competence as Mr. Coppola. However, I sensed a more opened mind and aware approach from the BOCES Superintendent than I saw in Mr. Coppola in his actions as the Corning Superintendent.

I think Mr. Coppola would be more likely to carry out the administration’s agenda, rather than act for the good of the Horseheads community. You may say they are the same agendas, but experience tells me they are very different. It doesn't make sense to me that we would employ him at a greater cost. It reminds me of hiring a the new business manager, a close friend of Mr. Congdon, at a greater cost and then sending half his responsibilities to BOCES at a still greater cost. A willingness to spend more dollars for less performance seems to have dubious motives. Sincerely,

CHAPTER 12. THE CONGDON REGIME; CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION To tell the truth, I’m not sure if it was 2003 or 2004 when I ran into Cathy Knowles,

the superintendent’s confidential secretary at the Painted Post, Post Office. It was a pleasant meeting. She was always nice to me, even during my days on the school board. Still I kept a distance, because employees seen talking to me could face problems for doing so. She thanked me for standing up to Superintendent Reester and the board while I was on the board. She told me someone needed to do it and there were people that supported me even though they didn’t do it openly.

She mentioned Reester had been intimidating employees and harassing them. This was the man the board pounded me so hard in support of him. The man in whose defense the board’s wrath came down on me so often.

She even said, Board President Joyce Budney said to her, “I guess Jerry Furnkranz was right about Reester!

I said, “I wish I had known this was going on. I could have fought him much more aggressively with proof of my suspicions based upon what I had witnessed.”


99

She indicated people were too afraid of him to take the chance to expose his intimidating and untrustworthy behavior. I had addressed the issue of his untrustworthiness on his performance appraisal.

So, during my time on the board much of what I saw, said, and surmised was true. My instincts were correct about the superintendent’s behavior, even to a fair greater degree than I had suspected. I probably wouldn’t have guessed it went as far as it did with people speaking up and giving proof.

I will admit, I took some satisfaction I hearing those words. It was nice to know my impressions and instincts were accurate. My evaluation of the facts and the behavior gave me an accurate vision of the person. I don’t very often get that kind of feedback.

Most of all, I thought perhaps the board and new superintendent might begin to move in another direction. A more honest direction would be good for the children, the community and the district leadership. Much more important than me being right was them seeing the light. I thought things might get better in the district.

While I heard an understanding of the mistakes of the Reester regime and how we are paid for them, the blame seemed to be directed only at the previous superintendent. While certainly he bore some of the responsibility, it must be remembered the board was in a position to stop his ill advised behavior. Red flags were raised pointing it out. I raised many of them myself. I stuck my neck out far enough, only to be chastised, ridiculed and belittled by the board. I felt their full powers of intimidation and bullying brought against me and still confronted them. Their defense of Reester in this way laid responsibility for his actions in their lap.

It was major weaknesses in those individual board members that allowed them to be led by the nose. The inherent snobbery of the board, often originating from a few members, allowed them to be manipulated by the superintendent. Their own desire for feelings of superiority had them gladly sniffing behind the lead dog. Egos that needed to be liked and admired in positions, they set themselves above the public. I hoped the lessons would be learned. My wish was that they’d admit their mistakes and learn from them.

Make no mistake, Reester was the lead dog. In board member Brinthaupt’s oft spoken words he revealed we were not there to lead, just to follow. Similar to the Corning Painted Post Board president, he often espoused dependence on the experts to show him the way, exhibiting the same puppet like vision of leadership. I can’t help but feel the long service to the board Brinthaupt cashes so many checks against was just performing as a resident good ole boy.

Similarly, the board president reveled in a supporting (enabling) role for five or six years. What a disastrous waste of valuable time! Not only did we not make any forward progress when we could have, but the new starting line has been set back substantially.

Mr. Dedrick’s voice has always been allowed to sound off unchecked. While others speaking clearly have been silenced for concisely referencing related issues when explaining a “No” vote, Al had been allowed to ramble on incessantly saying little of value. His points, seldom apparent, usually managed to belittle the public or say the board and administration could do nothing, their hands were tied by contracts, New York State Law and/or New York State mandates. It was obvious his disdain for the community spoke for the board. He was used as an attack dog to espouse opinions the board lacked the courage to reveal in public.

Other members just followed without question or debate. They handed over their power and responsibility to those dominant board members as they did to Mr. Reester to do


100

whatever he wanted. Allowing their puppet strings to be pulled bears almost as much responsibility for what happened as overt actions.

Sadly, I do not see within those people the ability to admit or even attempt to look at their own part in Reester’s behavior. They do not have the strength to inspect themselves, their weaknesses and mistakes. Some have summarily dismissed the idea of questioning their own motivations. Without the strength to evaluate themselves and their own performance, I don’t see how they can correct the vast damage they have done.

Recently I read an article on corporate boards. The author suggested that boards still giving out golden parachutes to executives were not exercising the leadership that was their duty. (These golden parachutes are retirement enhancements to leaders who have failed miserably. Of which the board is guilty.) They were supposed to be there for the stockholders. Their mandate was to lead the CEO in a proper direction, not be lead by him.

I was told before I became a board member that a school board should be the same thing to the superintendent that a corporate board is to a CEO. Unfortunately corporate boards have now stooped to a bent knee to lower themselves to school board levels.

I don’t mean leading by micro managing! I mean leading by displaying the values the district should exemplify! I don’t see the board character having the integrity, leadership, honesty or common sense, to display.

The three current board members with the courage to disagree are prosecuted and persecuted by the district machine. While they are really the only positive attribute of the board, they are treated like a cancer. This tells me the overall character of the board and district power structure hasn’t changed. Their priorities and behaviors are immature and contrary to what it should be.

The district financial situation has reached “in extremis”. It is that point in nautical terms where a ship must take all measures it can to avoid a collision or it will inevitably crash. This includes immediately sounding the danger signal and putting the engines full astern. Anything less and the leadership (captain) of the privileged vessel will still bear some responsibility even if the burdened vessel was totally in the wrong.

We are in extremis. We must sound the danger signal. We urgently need to reverse the direction we have been headed. As Mr. Congdon and I discussed at our encounter at the Mall, it might mean pruning back many of those extras that cloud the vision (the mission). Making sure we educate all to the basics before we start giving resources for all these frills and toys. Making sure the system does all it is supposed to do before it gets enamored with all it wishes to do. Still, waste and extravagance should never be among those values displayed by the education system. Yet it is.

It was with great expectation I listened to the choice of the new superintendent. Bill Congdon had great potential as a superintendent, and he brought that potential to the Horseheads School District; to reach, even surpass the legendary competence it once held. I thought hopefully, he brings integrity to the position; something it has lacked for quite awhile.

I felt Mr. Congdon had the vision, the courage and the will. I just wondered if he was capable of overcoming the ball and chain the board forces him to drag. I couldn’t bet on him till I was sure. He may be handicapped and I will have to see how he can run with the extra burden. I will support him as much as I can. I can’t support actions of a board that displays primarily the ability to screw-up and tell themselves they are doing a great job.


101

On the other hand I see a threat to that potential. That threat is the integrity deficit as the board applies its leadership. While Bill Congdon has exhibited the ability to implement successful programs, without the board leading the way in the proper direction, we are left to the unwavering strength of Mr. Congdon's own integrity. The inability to implement processes and make them work makes the board capable of only voting money to an issue or problem, to feed its ego. With little ability, therefore interest in making things work, money continues to be the board’s ineffective answer to every problem and always will be.

If such behavior continues, Congdon alone must then maintain the course of effectiveness and efficiency to look for reallocation of resources and cost reduction when possible. That would be difficult for any superintendent to do, even if the board is a neutral or null force. It means the superintendent as an individual must keep very focused on those goals to push all his energies and resources toward meeting them.

If the board leans heavily toward actions without integrity, as it has in the past, it could sabotage his efforts, altering courses of integrity like a dragging anchor. It can destroy great potential that could mean so much to our school district.

There was also the issue that Mr. Congdon was well liked. The board and the "For The Children Banner", it wraps itself in to excuse the many lapses of integrity, could easily excuse giving up the store as it did over the last five years.

The legacy of our last superintendent was to comfortably feather his retirement nest. Reester ran away leaving little positive, while the board slapped him on the back, congratulating him every step of the way.

While I have high hopes in regard to the potential of the possibilities, I see the snobbery the board engages in keeping it from meeting that potential. Unless they stop patting themselves on the back for just being there and begin to hold themselves accountable for performance, to set and meet goals, the community will see more of the same.

Our new superintendent was fairly new to being a superintendent. He will need help. He will need to be given the leeway to keep on the path of integrity because it is essential to good education for all. You can't expect each superintendent to be a savior. They are not as we have been so often reminded.

The board has wasted the last five years failing to build leadership strength into the board. They are going to have to do it now if they really want improvement. But, if they are satisfied just voting money to ineffective programs and just maintaining the status quo for the education profession, they clearly have the ability to meet that goal. Politics In The Dark Of Night

It occurred sometime in June 2006. I think I heard it at the barber shop? I heard the news that Sharon Reed, the Business Manager in the Horseheads School District was fired. She was let go after dark, upon fulfilling her leadership responsibilities of running the voting process throughout the district. Starting a seven in the morning, fifteen hours later, they squeezed all they could out of her, then they were firing her. It wasn’t even the superintendent that carried out her firing. Congdon, in a cowardly display of leadership sent his attack dog legal counsel to do the dirty work. He sent the lawyer to intimidate and browbeat the exhausted Business Manager. When Mrs. Reed, exhausted from a sixteen hour day and the shock of being fired at


102

ten o’clock PM after putting in such a grueling day, Jim Young harassed her to hurry as she packed up her belongings. When she didn’t respond quickly enough for him, he called the police to have her removed. To add to the humiliating treatment she had received, she was further humiliated by being escorted out by the police. This is how Congdon and the school board did business. When I heard this story, it raised a red flag for me. When I was on the Horseheads School Board, Sharon Reed was the most honest and competent person by far that I encountered in the district. She was only one of a few people I knew would be deemed competent in any environment and the only one among the administrators. How could this happen to such a person. That she was fired raised questions in itself. The way she was fired threw more suspicion over the incident. This is what drew me back into the school district business after almost three years of stepping back. These incidents cried out, “Something is rotten in the Horseheads School District!” Congdon would later confide to me Reed’s dismissal was not an issue of competence or corruption. He saw her as a very competent and honest person. What did that leave then? Perhaps it was a personality conflict. But Congdon stated he liked Sharon. If so, what was the basis of that conflict and who was it with? Note, while Sharon Reed attempted to fight this through the legal system, she watched her limited resources disappear while the school district had unlimited resources. The district merely had to raise taxes to pay the bill. The district could buy off parties to keep such incidents quiet. They would never have to reveal the buy out, because such transactions were deemed personnel issues and could not legally be revealed according to state law. This hands school districts, superintendents and school boards a blank check for corruption and covering it. They use it often. “Corruption Begins With Small Indiscretions!”

How appropriate the Horseheads School Board discussions on July 12, 2004 highlighted scandal in the Roslyn Long Island School District. Administrators, board members and watchdog auditors looted millions of dollars.

Attending that night was Mr. David Hulslander, a retired police officer who investigated such crimes. Superintendent Congdon asked, his voice filled with incredulity, “How does something like this happen?”

Mr. Hulslander answered simply, “It starts with small indiscretions!” Though listening, I don’t think Superintendent Congdon or the school board

understood his answer. After the meeting community members discussed the assistant superintendent

bringing her dog to school daily. While seeming inappropriate, I felt it a minor nuisance considering the serious problems facing the district.

What harm can a small dog cause in a school? Signs on school property reflect policy that prohibits dogs. Assistant Superintendent Biagetti’s actions place her above the rules. Remember Mr. Hulslander’s warning, “Corruption begins with little indiscretions!”


103

Custodians pulled from regular duties clean up messes her dog makes. If her dog bites someone the district is liable, a burden taxpayers will ultimately carry. This is only the beginning of selfish agendas placed above the rules.

A sign was pulled down right of her door by a board member immediately after a meeting the issue was brought up by a community member. Signs around the campus were pulled down the day after the issue came up at that meeting.

This assistant superintendent negotiated the Broad Street Schoolroom Rental Contract with ARC. She sat on the ARC board of directors. The Business Manager usually involved in negotiations was pulled off of this negotiation.

The going rate for renting those rooms had been $8,500 each per year. Ms Biagetti gave these rooms to the ARC for $3000, as reported in the Star-Gazette, with all services to be provided by the district. When the board initiated the contract, it failed to inquire if the agreement was a loss for the district or about other options.

Disregarding the contrast between the rental prices, the Assistant Superintendent should never be negotiating the contract. It is a conflict of interests! There were rumors that groups willing to pay the going rate were ignored. These two issues were addressed on the state audit that finally came back in 2007, saying they had


104

not been handled properly. Sadly, they (the audit) did not look into the reasons Mrs. Reed had been dismissed.

Outrageously, the Assistant Superintendent’s contract allows her what amounts to an extremely expensive healthcare gift certificate! It bestowed lifetime health insurance on her legal representative, at the expense of the Horseheads School District, even after Biagetti’s death.

Such selfish actions have multi-million dollar ramifications for the school district and taxpayers if similar benefits went to all staff. It sets a precedent for frivolously sharing insurance benefits the district pays for. This action sets precedent for creating the model teachers could begin to negotiate toward in their contracts. Spiraling financial strain on already overburdened public schools and property owners will result.

Nepotism of administration and board also paid two administrators in the same position for eight months, costing taxpayers over $52,000 additional from the budget.

Several weeks after the dismissal of Sharon Reed were visiting auditors informed of this list of questionable actions? The community needed to ask, was the business manager dumped in the dark of night to cover these trails?

Sharon Reed’s dismissal silenced the district conscience, exemplifying the festering infection of small indiscretions! Small self-serving indiscretions began the journey in Roslyn Long Island toward the $8 million looting of the district by those abusing a public trust.

At the board meeting of September 13, 2004 Superintendent Congdon said information regarding the reference to the term “legal representative” in the assistant superintendent’s contract from my letter of August 27, 2004 was not true, when Bonnie Wood stood before him and questioned about it. The superintendent and the board president adamantly denied there was any such reference. He portrayed it as a lie, invoking, “His mother had taught him better.”

In front of meeting attendees he vigorously decreed factual information a falsehood. He had two weeks to research my concerns expressed in my letter of August 27, 2004 and become knowledgeable of the facts.

At the board meeting of September 27, 2004, he portrayed that as a misunderstanding, apologizing for the way he came across to Bonnie Wood. He said nothing about the misrepresentation he and Board President Joyce Budney had made, both denying that the term legal representative did not exist in the assistant superintendent’s contract.

He clarified to me in the parking lot later that night of the September 13, 2004 meeting. He admitted to me the terminology “legal representative” is in the assistant superintendent’s contract and also in his own. He did nothing to point out he wrongly denied the existence of that terminology “legal representative” in the contract. He left his misrepresentation of the facts in the minds of people at both meetings.

That same night he attempted to trivialized it calling the term, “legal representative” to describe a beneficiary of healthcare insurance as “boiler plate” contract language. In other words the term, “legal representative” describing beneficiaries of healthcare insurance had become “standard contract language” in the district. This language with regard to healthcare beneficiaries is very dangerous.

After he told me I was right about it being in the contract that evening, the next day board member Mrs. Apgar told people that witnessed the superintendents misrepresentation she was in the office and he looked it up, and it wasn’t in the contract. I wonder if this was a


105

mistake, misunderstanding or business as usual, confining the admission to what might seem like a lie to a small area, and then perpetuating the untruth beyond to protect their righteousness, reputations and credibility.

Congdon also attempted to trivialize the terminology at the meeting of September 27, 2004. Each time I tried to express my concerns about the broad ramifications of such open ended terminology with regard to healthcare beneficiaries, he brought it back to individuals and what he or the assistant superintendent deserved. Eventually I was silenced by Mr. Dedrick and rightly so, because the point I kept making the superintendent kept avoiding, making it a waste of time.

This highlights my concerns about his leadership approach. His focus on what he deserves rather than looking at the disastrous implications the term “legal representative” could have with regard to healthcare benefits. Making a precedent of giving healthcare benefits to almost anyone an employee would designate is irresponsible.

Two lawyers looking over the language agreed with my impression about the ramifications of the wording. Such language opens the door to giving healthcare benefits to practically anyone by such a definition. As I wrote in my letter of August 27, 2004, it is virtually a healthcare gift certificate that can be bestowed on whomever the employee wishes. It can lead to millions of dollars of sharp increases in the budget for healthcare benefits, on top of already skyrocketing healthcare costs. District leadership’s attitude toward this issue seemed blasé and negligent.

Countering his outright lie at the meeting, he announced that this terminology has been in contracts for years, and even accused me of voting on contracts with the terminology in it. Well, I have a draft of the first superintendent contract I voted for and there was a reference to legal representative. However, again it was in reference to sick days made part of the employee’s estate that can be bestowed on anyone named. This was where the term appeared as boiler plate language. I saw it used in no other place in regard to healthcare or healthcare benefits. It was not in the area of healthcare. Again he attempted to deflect us from the real issue.

He was trying to make healthcare benefits property the employee’s estate owns and can bestow on anyone they wish. While sick days are a one time payment, healthcare benefits will be an enormous expense to the taxpayers for possibly another fifty years. That fifty years would be the most expensive of that person’s life as with all those numerous retiring educators, sharply increasing costs both because of additional premium payments and greatly increased use driving the healthcare premiums for district employees higher and higher. It truly looked like he was trying to sneak this terminology into the healthcare benefits, which would be a gold mine benefit for educators and extremely detrimental to the Horseheads School District finances and property tax situation.

Lastly, he misrepresented my votes even further. Yes, I did vote for that superintendent’s contract in my first eight months on the board. It did have the language “Legal Representative” in terms of sick days, but not healthcare benefits. Perhaps I was foolish, naïve and/or stupid to begin my term trusting the board and superintendent. I soon learned that was not wise and I voted against the 1999 and 2000 superintendent’s contracts because of these same kinds of slick behaviors.

Congdon’s attempt to discredit me was another false and misleading statement. Whether intentional or just normal slovenly and sloppy work of district leadership it was misleading. For a man who says he has nothing to hide, he sure behaved like one that does.


106

This slick behavior affects even his financial analysis of the Broad Street Room Rental and Cost Savings of having two persons in the same high administrative position are suspect when considering the slovenly, sloppy and/or dishonest spin that seems to be employed, supported by incidents I have cited. Those same behaviors applied to financial reporting, spin to support ones own point of view, the numbers could certainly be manipulated. Words manipulated to this degree for self-serving purposes, suggests the numbers likely will be too.

For instance Congdon reported that the state reimbursed BOCES for about two-thirds of the $8500.00 they paid to rent each room at Broad Street School or about $5,500. Actually, BOCES receives no state reimbursement from rooms rented to the district. The district receives two-thirds reimbursement for the district’s calculated portion of responsibility for the BOCES room rental budget. This certainly paints a far different picture than he, the superintendent painted for the Star-Gazette. Whether this is an issue of honesty or competence is for others to decide.

Spotty Information

As I wrote in my letter of September 14, 2004, Board President Joyce Budney

chastised me for presenting my information while only having half of it. I acknowledged I probably have far less than half the information, but needed to present what I had because “the lynch mob” was acting now. That was the context of “lynch mob”, meaning you can’t wait to confront the board for doing wrong till after they’ve hung the victim.

Yes, some of my information was spotty. I did not have it all, and will not have it all until the deed is done, if ever. If I waited the opportunity to stop possible injustice would be gone.

The Board and Superintendent have access to all the information. Yet did not have correct knowledge of the “legal representative issue” when it was presented. They behaved as though the information given to them by Bonnie Wood was false. They said it was not true, basically calling me a liar. They continued to misrepresent it, even when they found it was true, avoiding acknowledging the difference when it is applied to healthcare benefits.

Who is more culpable here? That person that has access to the information and acts without it or distorts it intentionally, or the, who cannot gain access to all the information and acts on the portions and behaviors he has witnessed? I think the leadership having the information is far more suspect in their actions!

That information is at their fingertips. They can have others get it for them, yet they ere unaware of it. Such actions are disingenuous, lazy, slovenly, sloppy and dishonest. It is absurd they did not have the correct information on that issue. Perhaps some board members are being manipulated, but then they allow it to happen. This behavior points toward ineptitude or lack of competence. Board expectations for others are far greater than for themselves.

Joyce Budney wanted a disclaimer from me stating a percentage of information I have yet I might possibly never know how much of it I actually do. Shouldn’t she give a disclaimer saying they have access to all the information but seldom bothers to check to see if it is correct? She just took the superintendent at his word and denied the term legal representative existed in the contract. This began her exposure to and support of outwardly distorting the truth.


107

Again, the repetition of similar actions had made me question the board’s and administration’s credibility. It is their own actions and words I acted against as I have for years. It is not the words of others against them as their paranoia tells them! While they may see this approach as unfair, I see this tracking of trends of poor and dishonest behavior as a right and proper way to confront the board. It is a necessary strategy if the school district is to attempt to reach its exemplary “blue ribbon” status.

The superintendent’s self-proclamations of honesty were beginning to cash checks he did not have the balance in his account to pay. Actions speak louder than words. Playing fast and loose with the truth, which he has certainly done as I have documented here, will and should damage his credibility.

That is exactly why I implicitly mistrusted the board. It has manipulated the truth far too often and continues to do so. Documentation of incident after incident has forced me not to trust them. I am now beginning to have serious doubts about even this new administration. While I am sure Congdon’s mother taught him better, we must seriously question if he learned what she taught him!

President Budney accused me of, “Wanting her to think the way I do.” That is not true. I’d just like to see her think. Yes, think for herself as I would like all the board members to do! I’d like them be strong and honest enough not to be a puppet for the administration, particularly when they are being disingenuous. When they support educators being dishonest, they are being dishonest also.

School board members need to be advocates of good education, not advocates of administrators. Still, that is only second to being advocates of integrity, honesty and competence, because without those three, at best education can only be less than mediocre. Financial Analysis

Information I received from my request through the Freedom of Information Act

disappointed me to find out there was no financial analysis for the Broad Street ARC and YMCA room rentals. Also, there was no financial analysis for the rational of having two people in the same high paid administrative position for eight months.

I did not expect the administration to create documents for my consumption. I thought at that meeting when they explained and justified the numbers, they held up papers to the audience identifying them as a financial analysis for those issues. They threw out a lot of numbers, as though there was some sort of logic to them. I think they influenced the young, impressionable reporter there with that barrage of words and blizzard of numbers. I’m sure she felt they were real, just as many others did.

I must admit, I am not surprised though. I would have been surprised if there was some sort of formal financial analysis to back up those issues and their numbers. I would have been even more amazed if they were complete and competent pieces of work.

The superintendent was throwing out the numbers right and left, with no formal analysis done. He was talking fast and loose. It was impressive. Though it seems more like his intention was to confuse rather than clarify. His defense now seems more like blowing smoke, strategically laying a smoke screen to hide the issues rather than reveal the truth.

Particularly when he added his extremely inaccurate portrayal of what the two thirds reimbursement to the district for rentals to BOCES actually was! It really seems he was unaware of how the process worked and just threw it in to justify actions he really did not


108

have the facts to back up. He totally misrepresented that process, perhaps to find justification for his actions. I think this represents the lack of validity of his words and actions more than anything else!

Using the numbers to make a predetermined decision acceptable is not really honest. Manipulating the numbers to rationalize a decision already made is not in the best interests of the public. A financial analysis is supposed to provide with as much certainty as possible, it is a good decision, by taking into account all the information.

This is the lazy and sloppy way that I have pointed out business is conducted in the district. It leaves no room for confidence in the district leadership. It opens the door wide for doubts to grow. From what I can see regarding district leadership behavior, those doubts are justified. One cannot help but attribute the actions to lack of competence or honesty or more likely both.

Then another issue jumps out at me from the information I requested. The hiring of Judy Christiansen initiated two high paid administrators in the same position for eight months. There was no formal financial analysis done to justify this action. Two Persons, One Job, For Months

One could say, as Mr. Congdon did, we would like to have the person entering the job on board with the person leaving the job so training and collaboration could take place, but that is usually not a realistic thought, especially at such a cost. Also, these are highly paid professionals, and such a need should be far less if they are competent to the level they are being paid.

When looking at the job search process, it certainly looks like a cover your butt action. It doesn’t look like a well conducted, thorough search for the best person for such a high level position in a school district.

Judy Christiansen worked at SCT BOCES where she had much contact with Horseheads District administrators. She was losing her job at BOCES. Likely it was felt she would fit well into the power play leadership style evolving in the Horseheads District. This is often described as the “Good Old Boy Network”.

Advertising the position took place with an ad in the Star-Gazette and on the district inter-school e-mail for thirty days. This seems greatly inadequate for such a career type position. Also, the ad in the Star-Gazette stipulated the district preferred a law degree. It looks like the job description was designed for the person, not the job to be done. The appearance the job was built around the person rather than finding the best person for the job reeks of nepotism.

This looks like the enlisting of good soldiers, those that will do the unquestioned bidding of the district leadership. While at the same time, those that would speak up for themselves and the community are being weeded out. These strong arm tactics began with the last superintendent and seem to be a process that is being carried over. Sadly, the board has historically enabled this kind of behavior.

This is very bad for the community and the children. It looks as though decisions are made for the benefit and convenience of the administrators and not the good of education, the community and the children. It looks like a very selfish and cutthroat process is growing even more tyrannical. I fear we are following the crooked path they took down in Roslyn Long Island.


109

At one meeting Mary Ann Biagetti the assistant superintendent stood up and confronted my challenges to the administration and school board. She went over her years in the district and at BOCES, positions she filled, but never a word of what she accomplished in those positions. She was outraged and insulted by my accusations. She challenged she would have her contract changed and send me a copy.

Eventually, Mary Ann Biagetti the assistant superintendent sent me the last page of her revised contract. The wording looked much better but I was suspicious because she only enclosed that last page. An internal alarm went off immediately. It being only the one page struck me. I wondered what she was hiding in the rest of the contract. I wanted to see the entire contract and the other two that were approved at the meeting along with her contract. Were salaries a part of the other two? I knew it was with Congdons.

I was later to find out Biagetti did have something to hide, therefore only sending me the last page of the contract. With the contract change of language, she received a second $5000.00 (5%) raise for the year. It was almost like she was being paid off for removing the language that made healthcare a part of her estate. Like so many others, the whole affair seemed fishy.

In November 2004 I received a call from Bill Congdon. He wanted to meet again.

He thought we might be able to talk and work through some of the issues between us. He also suggested we might work together to solve some of the districts problems. I contacted Sharon Reed to let her know I was dropping her issue. She agreed it was time. I told her if I had an opportunity to make improvements in the district, I had to take them.

I still kept my ear to the ground trying to get a sense of what was going on in the community and district. The process we were going through was a building one. Building trust was an essential part.

I wanted to be completely open with Mr. Congdon so he would know where I was coming from. My vision of trust is that it is a fragile thing. Even when you meet someone for the first time, while you give them your trust, you watch carefully, based on many experiences with human nature. Kind of like Ronald Reagan’s approach to dealing with communist nations, “trust but verify.”

If there is experience with individuals or organizations trust is certainly affected by those experiences. If they are positive, it re-enforces the ability to trust. If they have been negative, it deteriorates that ability. I have good reason not to trust the education system or the district.

Also, I have not been given solid reason to trust the leadership that is presently there. Whether the competence of board leadership or members or administrators, or the integrity of those systems, which I cannot put a label on, overall, you would agree, there is reason for me to move cautiously.

That is what we have been working on these past few months with the meetings we have had. We have been laying the groundwork for trust and to make headway on many of the major problems that have been present in the Horseheads School District. Trust in such situations does not come implicitly. It has to be earned and past impressions have to be erased with a history of behaviors that warrant trust.

Coming upon contract negotiations with the teachers, predecessors constantly

used the excuse its in the contract and we can’t address it until negotiations. Each


110

negotiation they have failed to address it. Health Insurance had been a crisis in the real world for twenty years. People outside

the district have been paying more and more for their healthcare. Members of the Horseheads School District employees paid practically nothing. They got outrageously great health benefits, were unhappy with them and still expected more. When they were made to pay a little, they were given a salary increase to cover it.

Before 1995 I suggested the district bring in people from the insurance companies to explain behavior that causes excessive increases in their policies. I again suggested that as a member of the school board. John Abbott’s argument was, “it was patronizing to the teachers.” It still had not been done when this was the first step for most corporations back in the early to mid 1980s. Educators in the district see it as their right to abuse this ridiculously generous healthcare plan given them.

Attempting to come out with a win – win result is fruitless, because the community always loses. Educators must give back to the community expecting nothing in return other than knowing they have done the right thing. It is about time for that.

The data showed the Horseheads healthcare was a far greater percentage of instructional costs than most districts in the state. It amounted to almost 2.5 million additional expenses in our present budget. The district playing its selfishly political game caused this disaster. It had to be addressed this contract.

Mr. Congdon having been a football coach knew well the strategy of stringing out a play. Players positioned till the running backs ran out of field and the play died against the sideline with nowhere to go.

I was told that tactic would be used on me when I first got on the school board. At first I didn’t believe it. They were going to stall me till my three years were up. It wasn’t so far fetched, because I had seen the method used liberally in academe at Cornell. Still, I gave the benefit of the doubt to the board and administration, but found the warning was correct. I think I came to the conclusion much more quickly than they expected. This had been done over and over with healthcare in the district.

I was getting the feeling this same stringing out might be happening now. Our talks have alerted my instincts which are usually correct. I hoped Mr. Congdon would give me answers to questions that would build the trust between us. I really did want to be able to trust district leadership and work toward improvement instead of having to use the opportunity to fight the negative and unprofessional behavior that was to be prevalent. I ended t a letter, Bill, you said it the last time we talked, “eventually potential means nothing if there is no improvement.”

It was not easy to question as much as I did. Particularly while Superintendent

Congdon and I were working to establish credible lines of communication and nurture a trust between us. In fact the board and administration I worked with as a board member made it easy for me to confront the issues I thought were wrong. Through their arrogant and hypocritical behaviors, they made it easier for me to confront them, and confront them in a blunt and straightforward manner.

Once they showed me my respect for them was misplaced, they made it less difficult for me to question them and battle them. Though my words were harsh, and deservedly so, I still addressed them with courtesy and consideration, never raising my voice and always speaking when it was my turn.


111

I believe this is one of the purposes of my numerous writings and confrontations. You know where I am coming from and the reasons for my behaviors and expectations. I clearly points out those things that reduced trust and enable me to confront in good conscience.

I believed we were making some headway. Our conversations were slowly revealing us to one another. Trust develops slowly, particularly as we grow older and find we have all too often misplaced trust. We learn how the misplaced trust can set our goals and visions back. While I have no regrets about trusting, even when it subverted progress, today I feel it would be stupid for me to put necessary progress on the line by failing to ask questions, no matter how it threatens a relationship.

Mr. Congdon I wrote, “Should we become fast friends, I will still ask the hard questions no matter how uncomfortable they are for me to ask. As you reveal to me the person you would wish to be, friendship would make me ask those questions that I think would help you get there. I would expect you would do the same for me. We certainly may not see those actions in a similar light. Getting closer makes asking the hard questions more difficult, but they are no less necessary to ask.”

One thing I have learned through experience is the truly honest person and the really good liar, appear much the same on the surface. Those people that don’t look beyond the surface are easily fooled by the facades of the fraudulent. Dishonest people study the honest ones and know exactly what to say and how to say it. Superficially, it is difficult to tell them apart. Particularly, when we really want to believe in people or in a person, we can make it very difficult for ourselves to do the right thing.

I boil it down to a major litmus test I go by. “Actions speak louder than words.” If actions send a significantly different message than the conversations (words), I must be on my guard. Trust is not implicit. My trust certainly isn’t. So, if I hear conflicting information, I am going to feel the requirement to ask the necessary questions. I feel that is the only fair thing for me to do.

I was not writing any of these things in an accusing way, though it may have seemed that way. It was very important we understood where we were coming from to carry on and develop our relationship. Particularly since I didn’t think we were developing this relationship for the sake of a relationship. I think we were developing it to make progress in the Horseheads School District, with an eye toward major improvements. I will say, for the benefit of the children and the community. I think educators will benefit in the process. Perhaps we would develop a strong bond in the process. That would be a nice plus.

I wrote these letters to facilitate the conversations we had been having. We had productive talks face to face, but not nearly enough to facilitate the progress we needed to make. I use the letters to assist and advance the process.

Often I saw the district’s tactics historically as the old Ali rope a dope. If you let people say what they need to say, most will be satisfied to get it off their chest. If that doesn’t work, they’ll let people speak a little more and perhaps they’ll tire themselves out. Should that not work, they’ll tell us they will set up systems to alleviate concerns, but those will just be token systems and nothing will really happen. This process includes meetings, surveys and committees. The processes could go on for years and the expectation is people will either give up or forget. Like the football analogy I’ve made several times, stringing the play out to the sidelines till any attempts from the community will fizzle out.


112

We bring up so many things we have to tip toe around, we ensure that issues are not addressed. We worry about hurting board members feelings. Despite a history of failures in particular areas, we cannot tell board members they are responsible for that. How can we teach them to do right and productive processes when we can’t tell them they are doing wrong and destructive processes?

The issue of confidentiality has come up as a concern with implementing this financial consulting committee. Confidentiality is really quite a simple issue. I think we complicate it in order to make it a black box and frighten people into keeping silent. It seems as if we don’t really want community members to have access to information they have the right to have full access. The feeling the district is always hiding something is instilled by this behavior. I often sense the district leadership is uncomfortable about the community having all the information. Reasons such a stance is taken cannot help but make community members suspicious.

I wrote, “Bill, you have said it time and again. If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to worry about. There seems to be actions and activities that require hiding.”

“Issues of doling out jobs and money in ways that do not suggest the best interest of the community, the students and schools sows seeds of doubt. These actions can have the look of nepotism, which should be avoided at all costs in any school district. Serious doubt


113

about the district has been there for a long time. That is only natural when such processes are carried out in a way that can only be misconstrued.”

“When a problem is perceived, we don’t get together to define, discuss and resolve the problem. We change the structure around the problem. That seems to be what we have done sending payroll and purchasing to BOCES. We have hired to fill the business official position, paying considerably more, while half the position responsibilities have now been sent out of the district. We are going to pay over $100,000.00 additional to BOCES to do that. We have hired someone for more money for responsibilities that are sharply reduced. Common sense thinking people see a red flag here that cannot be ignored.”

“That his time will be spent on plans for the future, as you say, is not believable considering past history. We are again paying excessive dollars in advance for what might or might not happen in the future. When additional remuneration is received for nothing, what is to prevent the expectation for this to happen again? Why should such an employee expect to deliver results? Why wouldn’t district leadership dole out rewards in the future for nothing delivered when they have done it routinely in the past?”

“The community has been given no logical arguments for this decision. Because, instituting the Community Financial Consulting Committee could have provided for that opportunity by helping to carry the load, streamlining processes, planning for the future and providing other supporting services for free.”

I wrote to Bill Congdon, “I understand the desire to be trusted. However, if that is to happen, one must inspect ones own motivation. We must look at our own actions and question how they will look. If there are trends of such actions, they begin to grow in stature and influence more how our behavior and credibility are perceived. These are issues to which we must give consideration in order to merit the trust of people.”

“Far too often, district actions have not allowed for that trust. The twenty year history of questionable actions, like the healthcare issue demand that trust not be warranted. Many recurring issue’s tedious history in the district require the same mistrust. Opened access to non-confidential information could bring trust back to the district leadership.”

“Letting the community in seems to be feared by the district. Letting the genie out of the bottle so the community is familiar with what is going on also seems to be a fear of district leadership. In the long run, it will make leading in the district easier. Guidelines and expectations of the community will be understood and behaviors adjusted accordingly.”

I express my doubts openly and honestly in an attempt to improve the district. I think you will agree from the issues I have discussed in our many conversations and letters to you, there is reason for such doubts. So many of the systems in place stifle trust! This has to be changed and changed rapidly. ”Bill, I really can’t find things to trust in the way things are done in the Horseheads, School District. I would very much like to talk to you about these serious concerns that have arisen in my mind and heart.” The Reality Unfortunately, I think my willingness to work with Mr. Congdon was used as an opportunity to stall and derail my actions as was similarly done when I was on the school board. I haven’t seen where you have made an attempt to change the way business is done in


114

the school district. In fact, recurring examples show the opposite, business as usual. That business as usual does not appear to be ethical. I relayed to Superintendent Congdon, “I supplied you with a very extensive plan for improvement at your request in my letter to you of November 23, 2004. I have not seen the slightest movement toward anything in that plan. I cannot help but feel our interactions were no more than a stalling tactic on your part.”

Issues of doling out jobs and money in ways that do not suggest the best interest of the community, the students and schools sows seeds of doubt. These actions can have the look of nepotism, which should be avoided at all costs in any school district. Serious doubt about the district has been there for a long time. That is only natural when such processes are carried out in a way that can only be misconstrued.

Your own contract already approved for next year is very suspicious and sabotages contract negotiations as the board did with superintendent Reester with an excessive raise just before the last contract negotiation. The Assistant Superintendent

As previously referenced, in July of 2004, the assistant superintendent received a

5.25% increase from $95,000 to $100,000. Six months later in January of 2005 she received another 5% increase to $105,000. That is 10.25% salary increase in one year. Each increase individually was well above the 2% to 3% yearly increases those outside the education industry are receiving in this area. Rumor is, she is scheduled for another $5000 increase July 1, 2005. This stuffing administrator’s personal coffers to enhance them and their retirement hurts the district both in the immediate cost of overly inflated salaries and the districts long range obligations through administrator’s retirements. These administrator raises sabotage upcoming contract negotiations. She left this information out of the contract she sent to me. The Dishonesty of Nepotism and Cronyism

I will begin this discussion with two definitions, that of nepotism and cronyism. Taken from Webster’s New Riverside University Dictionary Copyright 1984, after looking in several dictionaries, these definitions most fit the cases to be discussed.

Nepotism - favoritism shown by people in high offices to relatives or close friends especially in granting jobs. Cronyism - favoritism shown to friends regardless of qualifications, as in filling political positions. Nepotism and Cronyism; Keys to the Horseheads District Hiring Process

When I first used the word nepotism to describe a behavior of Superintendent William Congdon, he got up at a meeting to defend himself against the charge I had made. He answered my concerns of nepotism, innocently he answered he could only think it as a reference to the district hiring his wife. That was not the issue I was referencing. That


115

had not raised my concern at the time, I guess thinking no one would be foolish enough to take advantage of such an obvious situation. When I first wrote about nepotism in the district practices, I was referring to the hiring of Judy Christensen as the human resource manager. A friend of assistant superintendent Biagetti’s from BOCES, she was hired with a five month overlap of the person she was replacing. Example 1 – The Human Resource Manager

The Human Resource Manager The human resource manager Christiansen seemed to be on this same dubious six

month salary increase schedule as her friend the assistant superintendent. The HR Manager, given a prestigious and lucrative position attained with a doubtful job search with minimal candidates being interviewed, as though a choice had already been made. A generous increase in salary accompanied the awarding of this position on the basis legal fees would be lessened by employing this individual. While tough to prove in the district’s murky budget environment, this does not appear to be the case. This was a very flimsy search process for such a high position, particularly in such a job market that has much talent looking for work. Since, like Biagetti she has received preferential biannual raises, these actions certainly could be characterized as favoritism and preferential treatment, coming under both categories of nepotism and cronyism.

Example 2 - The New Business Manager When Sharon Reed was dismissed from the position of Business Manager for the Horseheads School District, it started me again delving into the business of the district. It raised a red flag, because I saw her as by far the most competent and honest person I encountered while I was on the school board. That comparison is not just a person mildly competent and honest amongst a bunch of dolts. I would have compared her with some of the best I had encountered in industry also. I saw behaviors on both the school board and administration that could easily dismiss someone for just those commendable characteristics.

Less than a year later a new business manager was hired. I was told he was a close friend of the superintendent, which proved to be true. I really did not want to pursue that, as it came out as I was beginning to work with the superintendent on addressing some important issues with solutions. The issue bothered me, but I guess I was willing to fool myself viewing it as a sacrifice for a potential investment for progress to be made. The new business official came to be filled in much the same questionable manner as the Human Resource Manager. It seemed the new business official was hired with the same limited effort on the job search designed to put preferential processes in place to hire whom they wished. A new person slipped in after the old one was slipped out. It again looked like cronyism. A close friend of the superintendent hired with minimal candidates interviewed.

Then the superintendent moved payroll and purchasing to BOCES under the false premise it was a financial oversight suggestion of NYS Comptroller Alan Hevesi. It looked very much like the new business coordinator was being spared major responsibilities. We paid more for this guy; then we paid even more to send a major part of his responsibilities to


116

BOCES. Once hired, perhaps half of this position’s responsibilities, payroll and purchasing,

were sent to BOCES at additional cost to the district. We have hired to fill the business official position, paying considerably more, while half the position responsibilities have now been sent out of the district. Common sense thinking people see a red flag here that cannot be ignored.

When we saw him in action, many people attending the budget meetings, including myself wondered at his capabilities. The nature of this hire looks at the very least unacceptable, but certainly unethical and perhaps illegal. It clearly looks like cronyism: a leader giving a buddy favors: nepotism if you will.

I asked the superintendent about this issue. Others in the community questioned him about similar issues like raises within six months for the assistant superintendent and human resource manager. He ignored the questioners as though the questions had never been asked. Example 3 - The Internal Sabbatical Of The Middle School Principal

Then we come to an area such as evaluation of intensive scheduling. Part of the

compact was there would be yearly evaluations to see if it was really working. These fell by the wayside almost immediately while I was on the board.

Last year I was told by the superintendent that Principal Carney was given relief from his regular duties to do research and evaluation of programs for effectiveness and efficiency. Intensive scheduling was one of those programs to be evaluated. I was told a report was due. During the budget vote we were told programs had not been evaluated enough to make any cuts. At the August 1, 2005 meeting we were told intensive scheduling needed to be evaluated. One has to ask if Mr. Carney’s $80,000 to $90,000 salary to lounge around the school district was a misuse of funds. While he was to be evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of performance, his was obviously ineffective and inefficient. Or, was this just a payoff for a crony? This effort, or lack there of costs the district money! Even years later, data in presentations Carney was given credit for were only rehashes of the same smoke screens presented for years. Used to market to manipulate rather than communicating to inform, data was presented in the usual hard to follow, meaningless diatribe. This did not warrant the half million to possibly million dollars spent on the position over the years. Substantially better results could have been attained for a small fraction of the money spent for the position. Example 4 - The replacement of The Special Education Director

I could not help but wonder about the hiring of Rick Lintal’s replacement. She tagged along with Assistant superintendent Biaggetti for several months before receiving the position when the job searched turned up fruitless. Unfamiliar with her qualifications or experience, still knowing the internal processes leaning toward nepotism, I could not help but question the appointment. Later when June Lilley suddenly disappeared from the assistant superintendent position only fifteen months after she was hired, the community was told she resigned. That certainly seemed strange. It was rumored she refused to help the new Special Education


117

Director do her job. She was not competent to do it alone and June Lilley had to help to cover the cronyism of Biagetti. Only rumor, but it certainly fits the long standing pattern. Biagetti seemed to have the same hold over new Superintendent Matino as she had over previous superintendent Congdon. Some leadership! Example 5 - The Suspension Of Policy 5152, Admission Of Out Of District Students

Mr. Congdon discussed at an August board meeting the suspension of Policy 5152, admission of out of district students. He mentioned those already here when the policy was suspended were grand fathered and allowed to stay. That was not true, because he had allowed employees the privilege of bringing their children after the suspension of the policy.

Mr. Congdon’s confidential secretary was allowed to bring her daughter into the district after the restriction had been placed on doing so. It also opened the door for many questions from others living outside the school district on why they were not allowed to attend. Too, it set up the people of the district to paying liabilities this might incur so the superintendent can grant special privileges to his cronies. Again it appeared very much like special privileges for those close to superintendent Congdon.

Example 6 - The Hiring Of Bill Congdon’s Son

It was been rumored superintendent Congdon’s son has been hired by the school district. He has assumed a math teacher’s position. It is also rumored he did not have a teacher’s certification. Is this true?

I asked if this were true in a letter stating, “If this is true it certainly fits the pattern of nepotism I have been mapping in this letter. It brings great concern for whose benefit is the district being run. It doesn’t look like it is for the children or the community, but Mr. Congdon, his family and friends.” Mr. Congdon would later tell me this was one incident he would never forgive me for what I had done to his son. I responded, “I didn’t do anything to your son. I just asked a question.” His son was not hired in the Horseheads School District, but he was hired in the Elmira school district. I wouldn’t be surprised if superintendent Congdon used his influence to get him that position. Congdon repeated to me a number of times on different occasions that he would never forgive me for what I had done to and said about his son. I repeated I did or said nothing. I only asked a question which was never answered. The only way I can see that I did something to his son was if he intended to give him a job in his district and my asking the question made him feel he couldn’t do it. Example 7 – Full Circle To The Initial Charge Of Nepotism

Then we end up back to Bill Congdon’s concern that when I first used the word nepotism I was referring to the hiring of his wife. While I did not equate that with my use of the word nepotism at the time, another rumor surfacing that his wife was hired at a much higher salary than any new hire has ever come into the district. This bears notice! This issue


118

I had heard was the subject of a union grievance at the time. I never received answers to my questions about these issues.

Again, if it were true, the trend of giving positions, benefits and money to his family and friends is one that certainly must be questioned and investigated. This would have been an early action upon his return to the district as superintendent. This certainly could have set the standard of acceptable behavior he felt he could expect from the district and the board. The following map shows clearly what could be the result of that expectation the board fostered. This is a precedent that could greatly increase expenses and further bloat the school district budget and load the district down with dead wood not capable of doing the job.

The Downer Side

While acts of nepotism and cronyism are a downside in themselves, with negative behaviors they foster in the district leadership and their example, there is more. The downer side is you wonder which hiring was not an act of nepotism. I can’t help but wonder if the new principal in the high school is a hire in this nepotistic trend. Is competence really considered in the hiring process? Is it a practice to dismiss people to make room for friends and family?

Was the dismissal of Sharon Reed part of this nepotistic tendency. Her competence and integrity were not reasons to keep her in her job. In fact, were they reasons to dismiss her? Is being a good soldier, silent to the misguided actions of the superintendent the most important qualification being sought?

Only Steps on the Road To Corruption

I believe nepotism and cronyism are major steps on the road to corruption. Using ones position to give unwarranted advantages to ones friends and family creates elitist leadership attitudes. The next step that such leaders feel they are deserving of to reward themselves can take those behaviors well beyond the borders of ethics.

Such leadership doesn’t even notice their own ineptitudes and failings within their approach. Even if they should, they feel they are deserving of what they are getting out of it, so it justifies unethical even illegal behaviors. Such unabashed practicing of nepotism leads to taking liberties far beyond what is acceptable, ethical perhaps even legal.

One Step Leads To Another

Frighteningly, when we take just this one area (nepotism and/or cronyism) of crossing the bounds of honesty with dishonesty and corruption the frequency and magnitude appear to be great. However, there are so many other areas where corruption can be achieved passing through this area. It is difficult to believe this is the only area of transgressions.

In fact, as we look into the transgressions of nepotism and cronyism, we can see other transgressions, which once committed, probably open the door for greater corruption. Lying is an essential part of nepotism and cronyism. The person or people committing these acts lie to others and to themselves to justify these behaviors.

Misuse and abuse of money becomes a major part of nepotism and cronyism. People are being paid for jobs they are perhaps not suited, or should not have. Jobs which


119

they cannot fully fill and meet the requirements. Or even jobs for which they are completely unqualified. It could be categorized as wasting money, but on some level may even be stealing money.

Information was being manipulated to make these appointments. Job search criteria fitted to the persons skills you want to hire rather than the actual job requirements is cheating. It is changing the rules for your own purposes. Others are being cheated out of jobs for which they may be more deserving. Any child catching you changing the rules during the playing of a game would say, “you’re cheating!”

So nepotism and cronyism aren’t only wrong because they have historically become words that signify undesirable actions. They signify corrupt actions which are comprised of behaviors that lead to greater corruption. Nepotism and cronyism are comprised of lying, cheating and stealing to pull off such actions.

That leadership feels they are entitled to utilize nepotism and cronyism because they hold the elite positions will easily fall prey to the habits of lying, cheating and stealing. They do not see it as wrong because it is them doing it and, they are entitled. The bottom line is they rationalize they are doing it “for the children.”

Arrogance and hypocrisy will become tools of their everyday behavior in their leadership position because it takes arrogance and hypocrisy to even consider such actions. Using such methodology freely becomes a license to do what one wishes with no restraints on them but other people confronting and their conscience. If people don’t stop it, it is unlikely that a conscience, that has already experienced major failure, will.

Congdon blamed time constraints on why nothing could be done with the budget at the March 31, 2004 meeting. The truth is Mr. Rohrer and myself had been talking to him since October or November last year. I believe there were other members of the community talking to him in that time frame. The March 31, 2005 meeting was just another stalling tactic (token effort). That meeting could have been scheduled much earlier if it were desired to really hear from the community.

I wrote Mr. Congdon, I understand the desire to be trusted. However, if that is to happen, one must inspect ones own motivation. We must look at our own actions and question how they will look. If there are trends of such actions, they begin to grow in stature and influence more how our behavior and credibility are perceived. These are issues to which we must give consideration in order to merit the trust of people.

Far too often, district actions have not allowed for that trust. The twenty year history of actions, like the healthcare issue, demand that trust not be warranted. Many recurring issue’s tedious history in the district require the same mistrust. Opened access to non confidential information could bring trust back to the district leadership. Letting the community in seems to be feared by the district. Letting the genie out of the bottle so the community is familiar with what is going on also seems to be a fear of district leadership. In the long run, it will make leading in the district easier. Guidelines and expectations of the community will be understood and behaviors adjusted accordingly.

The Horseheads board and administration leadership has long cultivated arrogance and nurtured hypocrisy, allowing integrity to wither on the vine. Sharon Reed’s dismissal silenced the district conscience, exemplifying the festering infection of small indiscretions! Small self-serving indiscretions began the journey in Roslyn Long Island toward the $11 million looting of the district by those abusing a public trust.


120

Bill, there seems little in your actions or those of the board I can trust. I will go back to my battle tactics of before till I see the district leadership proves it is worthy of trust. This must be a history not manipulative anecdotal schmoozing. I’m truly sorry this did not work out better. There was potential that you rejected time and again. Call anytime you wish to talk. I’m still willing even though I question its productivity. You really should have known I would catch on!

As mentioned before, when the healthcare crisis arose in the mid 1980s, the first, immediate and minimal action in the private sector was to provide training to all employees regarding proper use of their healthcare benefits. This was the swiftest and simplest step to make a positive impact. Employees were taught how to use their insurance policies wisely.

• Twenty years have passed since the healthcare insurance crisis surfaced. The Horseheads School District has not yet taken the first, yet simplest step.

In the mid ‘90s, Kenneth Galbraith, the assistant superintendent responsible for the insurance matters agreed it was a good idea and that it had not yet been done. A few years later, as a member of the school board between 1997 and 2000, I again suggested it when it was revealed it had not yet been done. One board member argued, “such a presentation was patronizing to the teachers.”

When I brought this issue up at the budget meeting of Saturday March 5, 2005 the assistant superintendent and human resource manager immediately mounted the defense, that recently or a year and a half ago or in 2001, unit heads were given the information to take back to their units. We were also told written information was handed out.

As educators, they know how ineffective such actions are! They know the information got to a minimal number of the population that needed to be reached! That important information transmitted by unit leaders who likely perceive they have little investment in the accurate dissemination, arrived with a distorted view educators in the district possess about their own healthcare privileges.

Yet this action, as a defense, still did not approach minimal initial efforts made by the private sector twenty years before. After decades of inaction it fell terribly short. It appeared to be only a CYA action, a token effort practically a repeat of past inaction.

In the 1990’s district leadership conducted several surveys which identified escalating healthcare costs as a primary community concern. Failure to bring healthcare costs under control prove the community has been ignored time and again.

In the early 1990s superintendent Bob Reidy and the board gave teachers concessions that bestowed upon them healthcare paid by the district for life. Other than their small contribution, the Horseheads School District carries the burden of all healthcare expenses of those educators till the day they die.

The district has experienced 40 to 50% yearly increases in healthcare several times over the last twenty years. This has been due to serious misunderstanding in the way the healthcare benefits are perceived. When part of the BOCES program, Horseheads expenses were so much greater on average than other districts our district participation caused major increased costs in the BOCES plan. Horseheads blamed the BOCES system for mismanagement when the truth was Horseheads wanted the platinum healthcare policy and


121

nothing else. They did not want to make the kind of concessions that would allow the district healthcare program to be managed effectively and efficiently by BOCES.

Many educators in the district see it as their right to exploit this ridiculously generous healthcare plan. There is little appreciation, only expectation. They seem to have only visions of more.

• Administrators benefit from these contractual giveaways. Their participation in negotiations are a conflict of interests.

Administrators are reluctant to negotiate common sense changes, because they are beneficiaries of these platinum standard healthcare plans. They do not want to give up what they have. It is a conflict of interests for them to negotiate contracts in the districts.

We have seen 2002-3 state data that the administration has verified as accurate, showing the Horseheads teacher healthcare is a far greater percentage (16%) of the total budget, than all but a few districts in the state (State Average 9%). This amounts to almost $2.5 million additional expenses in our present budget with regard to healthcare. This year alone healthcare will increase 21.95%, almost $2 million, ballooning to 18% of the total budget. The district educators playing their selfishly political games have caused this disaster. It must be addressed on this contract in 2005.

• With almost a $2 million increase in healthcare costs ballooning to over 18% of the budget, only part of a $4.4 million 7.6% budget increase, we cannot negotiate a Win, Win Contract. Educators must give back to the community that has provided for them!

With healthcare costs over 18% of the yearly budget, this is the contract we cannot negotiate a win – win, because the community always loses! Former Superintendent Reester and the board sabotaged the slightest of co-pays that were present in previous contracts.

The community must insist those using the healthcare policies in the Horseheads School System pay co-pays and are subject to deductibles and caps in line with percentages prevalent in the surrounding community. Educators must concede these platinum healthcare privileges. It is time! School districts have constructed elite societies within their walls whose grandiose and synthetic life style is subsidized by the communities and it must change. How can we expect educators to teach our children how to live in the real world when the majority of them have no idea what the real world is like? We finance a protective bubble for them to live in. • Leadership in the district appears more like the highly greased squeaky political wheel

than the well-oiled education machine as marketed. Our leadership acts like unethical behaviors are just another part of their entitlement package. After all, “it’s for the kids,” they say! So dishonesty is acceptable? Right?

District leaders will point out greater property tax increases in other districts. What they are saying is, “we are less incompetent than they are.” That is debatable! • Opportunities for millions of dollars in savings were passed up on this years and previous budgets out of laziness, incompetence, mismanagement and dishonesty.


122

While we pay salaries for heavyweight leadership, we get lightweights. No! Flyweights!

The superintendent told us that healthcare savings could only be addressed in contract

negotiations. This was a gross misrepresentation of the truth that cost the school district millions. Early in 2004, a pharmaceutical benefits manager brought in to the district was shocked to discover 52% of the Horseheads School District healthcare costs are pharmaceuticals. This doubled the high of the national average range of 18 to 26%.

This money was not dependent on contractual considerations as insisted upon by Superintendent Congdon. This money was and still is on the table to be saved by merely a respectful and judicious use of the community’s money by the school district employees.

Failure to present the case for judicious use of healthcare to educators has occurred over the last twenty years. It has lead to mismanagement and misuse of the Horseheads School District healthcare privileges and funds. The emails, handouts and presentations from unit heads, done recently, a year and a half ago or in 2001, whenever it supposedly happened, were token efforts to cover their behinds. This was an opportunity for millions of dollars in savings that should have seen real and concerted efforts employed. Leaving a few million dollars on the table to be wasted was certainly a lame effort.

• If generic drugs were used in the district at the national rate we could have at least reduced the 52% expenditure for drugs to the upper average number of 26% which could have saved the district $2.7 million.

Reducing drug costs to 42% could have saved $1 million, enough to sharply reduce a tax increase. Reducing drug costs to 32% could have saved $2 million, an opportunity for a tax cut. If generic drugs were used in the district at the high end of the national rate we could have at least gotten down to the upper average number of 26% which could have saved the district $2.7 million, sharply curtailing the $4.4 million 7.6% budget increase. Better than 26% is possible, particularly when employees see the savings with no change in the services they receive, potentially $3 to $3.5 million in just the one area. This saving was possible by employing common sense, frugal and respectful behavior toward the community’s money.

Information available over a year ago was ignored. If addressed assertively then, we might have saved a $1 million or more from the 2004-5 budget. We certainly would not have


123

had to raise it the healthcare budget $1.8 million this year and potentially could have financed a reduction of $1 million or more.

Still, this should have been on the radar screen for years and perhaps has been ignored like last year. If it had been managed properly since 2001, four years ago, $7 million dollars or more could have potentially been saved. If it had been noticed and addressed years before, many more millions of dollars of savings would have been made available, taking nothing away from the quality of education and services in the district. It could have reduced the growth of the budget and increases in taxes with no change in the services provided to the district. Many millions of dollars of the communities money was practically flushed down the toilet.

This years unnecessary $1.8 million increase in the healthcare budget only tells the district employees the money is there, so why should they reign in behaviors. Still, while savings are available through non-contractual means, co-pays, deductibles and caps still should be pursued and aligned with those in the community. There is potential for even greater budget and tax reductions. This should not be seen as an opportunity for program expansion, but realignment to a rational growth rate our school district can afford.

I believe an assumption should be made in addressing the remaining 82% of the budget. If we have found potential reductions of one third in addressing only 18% of the budget, where it was denied anything could be done; we can expect similar mismanagement and incompetence throughout the rest of the budget and the district.

• Education leadership lives on making excuses based on mandated programs. Mandate does not mean wasteful. Such programs can be run effectively and efficiently.

While leadership leans hard on excuses, one being that of mandated programs, it doesn’t mean they cannot be run effectively and efficiently. Strong evidence indicates they are not. While the praising of our district education by some members of the community and educators is strong and loud, I would contend our poor leadership is running the education portion as ineffectively and inefficiently as the financial portion. The principles of effectiveness and efficiency applied to the academic programs could certainly improve education quality. Great cost saving would result while improvements in academics could still be achieved.

There is room in the budget for education as it is now, but there is also room for education and programs to be tremendously improved, while greatly reducing the costs. This has been shown to be obtainable in just one area. If this selfishness in the district was addressed, and the community and educators worked together for the good of the children, this is achievable.

• Desire to be fair to the public is not evident in the district. Arrogance and dishonesty infest, while integrity is extinct. The hypocrisy of the superintendent, his staff and board inflicted threats upon the community, holding it hostage for their own nefarious purposes, when money for saving was easily within reach.

Debating a school district resident regarding educator’s misuse of their free pharmaceutical privileges, supporting them he said confidently, “I don’t expect teachers to


124

behave like they are living in the real world. They never have and I don’t expect that to change.”

Superintendent Congdon insisted over the radio that the choice to use pharmaceutical privileges more judiciously to save the community’s money was a contractual issue, because you couldn’t expect educators to act more prudently on their own to save the community’s money. They just wouldn’t behave with common sense to do what was right and reduce expenses on the budget. They needed the co-pays and deductibles to teach them to stop misusing their healthcare.

When a community member stood up at a school board meeting to say it was his opinion that if the educators had a benefit, it was their right to use it (or misuse it) anyway they wished. He did not expect them to use it frugally giving consideration to the community’s expenses. The group of teachers in the audience clapped loudly and cheered, clearly showing their active support of selfish, sloppy and wasteful abuse of their benefits.

Wasteful, careless, clueless, spoiled, elitist; call it what you will, educators could save money for over burdened benefactors without loss to themselves. Rising taxes raiding the finances of those living on the budgetary edge cannot spur educators to use the public’s money judiciously. This should not be done merely in hard times, but always because it is the right thing to do.

I saw Superintendent Congdon after the vote, thank those for voting their conscience. Devoid of any such baggage he and the board lazily and selfishly bullied and held hostage a community for a nefarious budget passing, when savings were and still are available.

This is not a school district I am proud of, though I once was. In fact I am ashamed of the behavior I see and the community has chosen to accept based on the misconception the system is good. A Tale of Two Districts (06/27/05)

Corning School District’s neglect of physical plant maintenance for the last twenty

years has put them in a building’s bind. Horseheads School District leadership’s blindness to the healthcare over the same period finds them in a comparable financial crisis. Similarities run beyond the neglect, time period and resulting financial crisis!

Long time Corning Board member and former president Dale Wexell said to The Leader, regarding Alternative 9s defeat, “Before we move forward, we need some kind of community input into the process. Whatever result comes from that we stand a much better chance of it being accepted by the community.”

Previously Option 2 had been given token hearings. Community members Lou Watson and Tom O’Brien were allowed to speak, but only after an uproar from the community. The community rejected previous plans district leadership presented.

Judith Dwyer, board vice president stated, “We thought we had a beautifully crafted compromise that met many people’s needs.” The proposition went down 57% to 43%, showing how far removed district leadership is from reality.

Superintendent Bill Congdon said on the Seth in the Morning radio show, that “healthcare wasn’t an issue in 2000,” disregarding a number of community surveys leading up till then which indicated differently. He told the community there were no healthcare


125

dollars to be saved other than by contract negotiations. In reality, millions of dollars were available for savings with judicious use of pharmaceuticals by district educators.

The Star-Gazette noted Horseheads District leaders need to listen because of the close vote. At a recent board meeting community members rightly questioned whether their purpose there was to listen to, as though condoning, board decisions or give input on issues important to the district and community.

Superintendent Congdon emphatically stated, “He has heard the community,” immediately following up with excuses why things cannot be done. Community members see Condon formulating defenses before community speakers finish. Congdon clearly was not listening! So goes the board!

This was not a single failure for either district. Their leadership is the same, possessing a fondness for not listening. They set up occasions to appear like they are, but present feel good marketing sessions to introduce their next effort to push their own wants; their own agendas.

A shared arrogance and snobbery of most board members and superintendents makes them view community opinion as that of uneducated peasants having no idea what is best for their own community!

What else do these districts have in common? Revolving door superintendents, one bad one after another, highly paid, skilled in schmoozing, intimidating and their own wants and little that is productive. They seek to slide through five years in the district and escape with their retirement nest feathered before they can be held accountable.

Both these districts practice failure that sticks out like a sore thumb. Surely other major flaws are being overshadowed. Incompetence does not stay segregated to one area. It spreads like an infection throughout the system.

Other school districts do not sit back and slough off these similarities! Look at the symptoms! Recurring problems of failure to listen to the community, substandard superintendents declaring higher taxes or additional state financing are the only solutions signal weaknesses. Without vigilance our districts could be the next Roslyn or Orchard Park. There is an epidemic of integrity degradation in New York State school districts.

William Congdon, Superintendent of the Horseheads School District is an honest man? He will tell you this in the first few minutes you begin to talk to him. It won’t take long into the conversation till he goes into his background of values upbringing. He’ll invoke the good old days, his mom and her apple pie.

To go to a school board meeting in the Horseheads School District is to have to wade through a gooey swamp of lies. New lies, old lies perpetuated cover ups, shaving the edges off the truth, clamming up when nothing else can be said because the public has confronted a lie and demands an answer. It is pervasive through every painful minute of the meetings. People attending see it clearly and wonder why they come merely to be lied to.

I find I get sick to my stomach when I feel it necessary to go to a school board meeting. It ties my guts in a knot. I know my hot button will be pushed with lies that will be told by the superintendent, administration or board members. I know I can go to only a few meetings a year and come away with incidents of outright dishonesty from the meeting that I will find it necessary to confront. Often I do think about the many meetings I don't go to and the levels of dishonesty that are perpetuated by the board and administration as the truth upon the community.


126

It has occurred so often that misinformation is distributed at the board, it becomes necessary to believe nothing told to the public has validity. I deem it a wise approach to mistrust everything the board says. District leadership says more to make them unbelievable than believable. Do you realize that means nothing they say can be trusted? Out Of District Students

Here is just another example in a long list of playing fast and lose with the truth, many occurrences of which I have communicated. At the August 1, 2005 school board meeting, Superintendent Congdon discussed the suspension of Policy 5152, admission of out of district students. He mentioned those students in secondary school when the policy was suspended were grandfathered and allowed to stay. That number was given as 24 students, verified by five attendees at the meeting and an article in the August 2, 2005 Star-Gazette! The article went on to say, “The district had not accepted out of district students for two years.”

We knew the second statement not to be true because the superintendent’s confidential secretary’s daughter began attending secondary school in 2004. The statement, “the district had not accepted out of district students for two years,” was not truthful.

A FOIL (Freedom of Information Legislation) request response from Director of Human Resources Judith E. Christiansen documented the number of out of district students for the 2004 through 2005 school year to be 49 students. This is more than double the number (24) given by the superintendent at the board meeting. Another piece of information that seemed to veer from the truth!

This follows the pattern of a majority of the information given out at Horseheads School Board meetings. I think you will agree this discrepancy of numbers given warrants questioning of the district leadership.

• Why were different numbers given to quantify the same group over the same period? (24 – 49)

• Who are these additional 25 out of district students? • Are they the children of district employees? • Is this a special privilege given to selected people, perhaps another example of the

nepotism/cronyism Mr. Congdon’s leadership seems to so often display? • Isn’t this scenario contradictory with Mr. Congdon’s statement in the paper when he

said, “We need to be mindful of discrimination lawsuits. Either we accept all people that apply or decline all people that apply?”

• Looking at the superintendent’s tendencies, and the compilation of these actions, hasn’t he opened us up to possible discrimination lawsuits?

• Are these actions unprofessional, unethical and/or illegal?

Whether these actions are unprofessional, unethical and illegal or not, I think there are some conclusions that can be drawn. First, there is a major level of dishonesty that is playing out in this scenario and so many others like it.

Often it will be excused the person misspoke. However, this is becoming a far too often used copout. There has been much erroneous information given to local papers, often admitted as errors, to some by the district leadership, once confronted. Seldom if ever has


127

the district gone back to the papers to correct the error! It suited a planned purpose, so no public declaration of the misinformation was desired. This indicates lying is taking place.

I wrote to the board, “Are you making the rules to be bent or broken by the superintendent and his inner circle! When rules are changed for a select few, without the knowledge of the other players, isn’t this cheating!”

“When these privileges are doled out to favored people, is this done to buy loyalty and silence? What is going on that this type of loyalty and silence is expected and needed? When these benefits are doled out to favorites at the public’s expense, isn’t this stealing from the public?”

“I guess you might be able to find excuses for the behaviors I have written about in this letter. However, when so many similar incidents have been revealed, the trend becomes difficult to whitewash with your standard pretexts.”

“This is the way leadership behaves in this district. It is not just under this superintendent, but there exists a pattern from at least the last superintendent. These patterns show up in incident after incident. It is not just coincidence but more likely the way the district leadership does business. The board is the link of continuity between superintendents.”

“Mr. Congdon insists he is listening to the public. It appears he is doing everything else but listening, even ignoring the community’s voices. This behavior is demeaning to all the people of this community. When being lied to, cheated and stolen from is what the community can expect from our school district, it does not elicit trust. Trust will not be forthcoming to the school district in the near future and it does not deserve it.” “If integrity and honesty are rare commodities in our public school system, how will they ever make a comeback to being a prominent part of our society?” “While the board and its president may see this as a personal attack, or perhaps even bullying, I think there have been enough occurrences of apparent nepotism and/or cronyism at upper levels in the school district to warrant questioning. To fail to ask these questions and share my observations would be negligent on my part. What I will write about seems to be a trend or perhaps better described as a trail of nepotism and cronyism.” Many Helped This To Happen

We cannot just blame these superintendents though. It has taken many more people

than just them to allow this dishonest and unethical behavior to succeed, survive and thrive. It has taken a school board. Remember, most of this school board has encouraged, even nurtured these dishonest behaviors for years. Pats on the back, being part of the group, even trips around the country encouraged board members to sanction the unethical behaviors of the superintendent.

It has also taken a teachers union that found great profit in dishonest superintendents. They were able to squeeze more out of their contracts using superintendent’s poor behavior as a lever to get what they wanted. So the worse he behaved, the more they could manipulate for themselves. It was not personally profitable for them to confront unethical behaviors they themselves practice.


128

This also includes a community that didn’t care about the children enough to make the district better. And many parents who supported the district dishonesty, because their children got more than their share, so they were willing to overlook.

Then we must consider government officials who have created the environment for corruption in education. They have set the standards, the conditions and the behaviors to allow education leadership to act thusly. The education industry has worked hand in hand with the politicians to create educators elite place in society where integrity has no business.

Summary

When one forsakes their integrity for benefits they can reap for themselves and their own, they have sold themselves for money. When they have forsaken a public trust with which they have been entrusted, their crime is much greater. These actions cannot be passed off as for the children or for the community, but for the individuals selfish motivations. To see it any other way is perpetuating a lie.

While cronyism talks about filling political positions and seems out of place in a discussion of education, sadly this is not the case. Our superintendents’ behaviors have been those of political bosses, showering favors on those supporting their personal causes.


129

Education has become as much politics as the political arena itself. The last two superintendents in the district have definitely made it thus, though it may have been the case for many years now.

To bring integrity back to the district and education in general, community members must become more hands on. Ideas must come from the common folk, not just the overly indoctrinated scholars. The educators have evolved so they cannot see education beyond their own benefits. It must come from the grassroots population not a selfish elitist group.

CHAPTER 13 - PROGRAMS An original Star Trek episode depicted the facade of a western town, where only the

fronts of buildings existed. The facades weren’t even set up outside, but on what appeared to be a sound stage, clearly a fabricated environment. The story line was the alien race observed us superficially. Looking from the outside they did not see the dimensions, the substance. Perhaps they only knew us from a few transmitted western movies that were floating on waves through space.

Star Trek legend says attempts to reduce the budget spawned the story. The story was written to accommodate a shallow set budget. Depth of story and concept provided substance to overcome a lack of money. Honest energy and effort create a reality that diminishes the consequences of weak facades. Such weakness can often encourage budget as an excuse for inferior performance.

Our public education system in NY State has a similar lack of substance. It seems our education leaders and therefore our educators are manufactured merely to play at work. It is almost like they have been separated from the real world on earth. Like those aliens in the Star Trek episode, they look at people living real life, in a shallow, uninformed way that lacks core essence. They seem not to be familiar with “real life”, so how can they teach children to survive, cope and thrive in the real world.

Look at the desk of the superintendent! Like the soap opera tycoon, his desk is a facade of rich opulence and elitist attitudes, designed for show more than go, getting things done. It is of the best hardwood, beautifully finished. Furniture surrounding it in his office suggests only the most successful type of person. He has his picture cube, with family and boat graphically represented, upon that desk, along with assorted high class artifacts, curiosities and knick knacks. The office has pictures and inspirational posters hung on the natural wood walls. It looks like the office of a high price corporate lawyer.

The superintendent sits there, straightens papers, occasionally walks a hall and promotes and implements a program that will eventually fail. They only propose the budget gets larger, even when financial times are hard. When times are good, they expand it even more, needed or not, to promote extension of their industries power and profit. This is all that playing at working in education leadership demands.

They never look into the budget to see if the community’s money is being handled properly. They do not assess programs to see if they are delivering. When they ask for a presentation on a program, it is full of warm and fuzzy, feel good testimonials. Its resemblance to a play a kindergarten class might stage is startling, lining the kids up to speak their rehearsed parts. If real data is present, it is only in superficial ways, enhancing the facade. Effectiveness and efficiency are not part of education leadership’s agenda. Positive results are not among education leaderships concerns. This is the message sent down the


130

chain of command till it is the wasteful way educators behave. They do not look to the classroom to see if the education of the students is properly

conducted. They look down from their ivory towers and tell themselves what a wonderful job they are doing. They pat themselves on the back for managing our future, yours, mine and the world’s, because as they always say, the children are our future. They place themselves on the pedestal as the molder of our children, there for our world.

Yet they fail to recognize, we are the children’s future first. The leadership of a previous generation is responsible for the world we show and leave to them. The example of what we are molds them. It can be substantive or a hollow dog and pony show exemplified as just another false front.

Recently ABC’s 20/20 and even our local newspaper in Elmira the Star-Gazette has recognized the reality that the money poured into public education in NY State has not produced better results. In letters locally, Patricia C. Goodridge pointed out this has been a long downward journey. Jim Ostrum Jr. remarked it is no accident, but part of a plan. If honest, nonacademic studies were conducted, I would bet the opposite would be found true. This great influx of money has degraded the quality of education.

How is this possible? Unlike the Star Trek set where budget constraints produced facades, a lack of substance, that increased the substance of scripts, the influx of money into education has made education dependent on and addicted to facades that decreased the substance in public education.

Over many years the education industry, through its lobby and indoctrination of educators and students, has cried they needed more money to improve education. There was a time when this was true. Educator’s remuneration needed boosting. This is no longer the situation in NY State and has not been for a long time.

However, like spoiled children, educators have learned certain behaviors have been very profitable for them. When problems surface, the first thing they do is cry for more money. Money to them has become the solution to problems. So much so, that when money comes in to address the problem, this is as far as it goes. Little else is done.

I’m not saying they do absolutely nothing. They may even implement a program. The program may even be promoted with a presentation which talks about solving a problem. However, that presentation, filled with buzz words, means nothing. It may talk about collecting data, evaluation, follow-up and fine tuning. However, this is just a part of the false face of the education industry.

Implementation is as far as it goes. Why should it go any farther? The education industry has taught its minions, and for their selfish benefit correctly so, problems must be addressed with money. Federal and state governments have shown their agreement by supplying more and more money. Profiting by building educational false impressions is the rule, not the exception.

Show over substance has expanded profits and extended power for the education industry. How many other institutions could do the same? This has made less than mediocrity and failure acceptable products in our education system. More money will come in to solve the problems and the education industry will become bigger and stronger (politically) because of it. Though, the results will not become better. They will become worse!

Reflexively educators have become builders of facades. Marketing has become a major part of their skill base. They market to manipulate rather than communicate to inform.


131

Very similar to politicians, they broadcast to the public what will draw the community in their direction of thinking, rather than dealing in truth to get to the bottom of problems for lasting solutions.

They manipulate the kids with their agendas in classrooms and at school sponsored events. Leading up to the 2005 budget vote, there were numerous incidents of promoting the budget in the Horseheads School District, using the scare tactic of losing programs like music, art and kindergarten.

Concerts were held at the voting sites, mobilizing the voters who had a vested interest in school programs to be out that night, leveraging the false threat. The congestion at these voting sites made it more difficult for the elderly to get to the voting booth. Greater traffic caused them to have to park farther away, elderly having to walk a greater distance to cast their vote. They also had to navigate their way through the hazards of that increased traffic, creating a gauntlet for older folk to traverse. Again this year, those concerts were scheduled nine months in advance for the budget vote for the same nefarious purpose.

Programs that fail are synonymous with these education leaders. Like used car salesmen, talking fast and loose with the truth to overwhelm the buyer. They just want the car (program) to run long enough to get you off the lot. They may even be gone when you return because you’ve been conned and the car (program) has broken down.

Numerous programs have been pushed this way in the Horseheads School District. Block/ Intensive scheduling lauded by two Horseheads Superintendents, after ten years promised data still has not been collected to prove this program works. First data collection was dismissed, even after data was promised, because it was like comparing apples to oranges. More recently data collection was dismissed because it was like comparing apples to fruit salad. In the academic realm, where research is king and much money bestowed upon them for it, you’d think they’d be able to properly evaluate programs they promote as problem solvers.

The Scientific Method of research, its foundation in education, has been abandoned. Honestly evaluating is no longer a part of the environment because it does not foster the profitable cycle of mediocrity and failure. The Scientific Method nurtures and inspires successful results. It inspires honesty, resulting in effectiveness and efficiency which are contrary to education industry expansion for profit and power model.

Discussing a research article on intensive scheduling with a former superintendent in the Horseheads School District, I said, “The article is awfully bias in favor of intensive scheduling without the data to support it.”

He floored me, when he replied, “You have to expect researchers to have their own agenda.”

I was always taught research was a quest for the truth. It appears this is no longer the case. Research is an academic effort to compile materials to support their decisions and agendas even if the results are not the truth. Perhaps even if the results cover the truth, in essence said research is actually a lie.

Is this the reason much of the recent and highly regarded academic dissertations have been found to be faulty? Is this why the works of many prominent scholars have been found to be based on false research? Has the epidemic of plagiarism by well regarded historians and writers been spawned from these attitudes? How can plagiarism be denounced by educators when it runs rampant in the academic community? How can classes on character education have any positive affect when this is the example laid before students by


132

the education industry? The intermediate school and recent Everyday Math Program have been similarly

introduced, evaluated and approved in the Horseheads School District. It has been suggested that ten years of existence for Everyday Mathematics is not enough time to evaluate the substance of the program. Show over substance, facades over facts not only allow, but encourage educators to dupe the public time and again.

Educators use many buzz words to enhance their facades. For instance a recent letter sent out by supporters of the Everyday Mathematics Program in the Horseheads School District use a myriad of such words to make their point. For instance, spiraling which is supposed to the visiting of concepts periodically throughout the year for the purpose of re-enforcement. This would appear to be common sense, but presented as though it can only happen if this sweet heart program is adopted.

Actually spiraling should be expanded to include cross over issues between math and science, math (statistics) and business, writing and science, writing and business etc. Concepts, if worthwhile should be continually revisited, not only in the individual class rooms, but reaching through the walls to other class rooms. Spiraling or an old term such as re-enforcement might suggest to you it should be a basic tenant of education.

They go on to talk about enrichment, remediation, critical thinking and problem solving skills as advantages of this certain program when these things should bean inherent part of the structure of our education system. They should be incorporated into all programs and all subjects and be an inherent part that is automatically engaged.

I thought we paid educators more, and many times over to possess these skills. Each time a suggestion of such skills comes up, so does the assertion we must pay them more to have them, when we have already paid them more, a number of times, to have those skills. Yes, we pay more and more to get the same results, but actually get less and less. I would say that is being short changed, held hostage, conned!

Those education strategies and the skills necessary to carry them out are not to be added on, but must be inherently employed in our education system, just as character education must be. They cannot be dealt with in a program that superficially teaches these skills and virtues at their convenience. These lessons must be taught in the everyday functioning of the education system. To do any less is disingenuous and dishonest. To do anything less is to dismiss such important concepts to the realm of mere facades.

These facades are fronts behind which we hide dishonesty. This sort of dishonesty has cultivated the cronyism that has become reflexive behavior for Horseheads School District leadership. Friends of the administrators hired to highly paid positions of great responsibility are again the rule rather than the exception. A quarter million dollar data administrator, the hiring of a close friend as the business manager and sending half his responsibilities to BOCES at a greater cost are a few examples of such cronyism. So are hiring for a position months before the position is opened and biannual raises for some administrators. Under this facade based leadership, it is easy to get away with. There is no responsibility for incompetence. Like all the state certified, education industry molded leadership they profess, there are only two alternatives, more money from the state or raising taxes. More money from the tax payers to dole out to cronies!

While I am a believer in the sports and the arts, it is not up to our public schools to fill all those needs. Access to these activities outside the schools is so much greater that it has ever been. However, our schools are attempting to gather up many of these activities even


133

though they are duplicating services. Certainly, it means more money and more power. These activities also garner greater ability to market. Success in sports, marketing of a play or concert fits in well with the promotional facades they use to thrive.

Let’s look at what the building of facades is actually building. The blurbs in the newspaper, lauding the accomplishments of retiring superintendents, are more likely to include a building program rather than educational success. In two cases locally, all that was bragged about by the exiting superintendents were building programs and thankfully both were scrapped after the superintendents moved on.

Under the guise of free or cheap state money they often build unnecessarily, expanding the education kingdom and its power. Like at Horseheads, an in door tennis court, track and golf facility were part of these building programs. A $68,000 concession stand on the soccer field and new bleachers on the football field where the old ones were in very good shape, highlight mismanagement over recent years!

They build for the mere sake of building. They build for the latest craze in education that will fade in a few years. Education leaders build specifically to house programs that are designed for failure or teaching styles that will become passé in a short time. We spend money on showy structure to solve problems that can be better solved by substance.

The shallow facade based leadership is doing what is right for them. Lacking the ability to manage budgets, people and programs, effectiveness and efficiency that could reduce budgets is not an option. These education leaders do not possess the knowledge, foresight, vision or motivation to manage or lead using proper tools. They are taught only to play at working. The poor results fit their agenda of failure and mediocrity.

With less than mediocrity, they pull more money in for their industry. Invested in failure they expand the power of their industry. They create, nurture and expand the problems they should be solving, because they are rewarded for their destructive behavior. They sabotage the education system with these actions. Like parasites, they are sucking the life out of public education, to which they are supposed to be dedicated. They do it for their own selfish agenda. It’s not that they actually think about it, it is a learned response, as with the behavior of Pavlov’s dog, it has become a reflex.

This has reduced highly paid education leaders to shills, schmoozing and promoting facades. They are not the educators that deserve respect and trust, but con men that warrant close watching. Protecting themselves from being found out for the phonies and fakes they are, is an integral part of the job they are actually indoctrinated specifically to do. This is the skill they are trained in and state certified for, schmoozing. Definitely they are manufactured leaders, cookie cutter designed to be flashy, show over substance.

Many school districts are on the road to Roslyn? The extreme case of Roslyn may be the exception rather than the rule. However, additional cases on Long Island suggest more districts have headed down that road. The accepted actions of educators building facades in education puts each and every district on the entrance ramp to the grand expressway to Roslyn, the “Grand LIE”!

When Mark Brinthaupt revealed at a Monday night meeting in August 2005 that one

of his goals was to assess whether intensive scheduling was working, it took me aback. When he said this was an issue for the last three years, I was even more surprised.

Intensive scheduling was implemented in the very early tenure of Superintendent


134

Keith Reester. Mr. Brinthaupt came on the board soon after its institution. Part of the plan presented was to assess it on a yearly basis to see if it was an effective program. One yearly presentation was given that first year, based on very questionable warm and fuzzy data. Follow-up on the program was mentioned often by me.

This program has been in existence for about eight years. Only now the knowledgeable sage Mr. Brinthaupt sees it as necessary to evaluate. Perhaps like Rip Van Winkel he has been asleep for a long time and he just woke up! There is some evidence to believe that when watching him at board meetings.

Last year I was told by Superintendent Congdon, Bill Carney principle at the middle school was on internal sabbatical from his job precisely to collect data and assess programs, including intensive scheduling.

Bill Congdon’s admission programs had not been evaluated sufficiently prior to the budget vote to make any cuts cast doubt on allowing principal Carney to spend time grazing on the pasture at the Horseheads School District expense.

We paid for an additional principal to take Mr. Carney’s place while this work was being done. Apparently we paid this additional money for nothing.

Superintendent Congdon told me intensive scheduling cost us more than the old method. We were told it would cost us less. I was also told a presentation of the data was forthcoming. Then I hear from Mr. Brinthaupt this is on the list for this year’s board goals. Now, after eight years we will begin compiling data.

Mr. Congdon seems to be using our Horseheads School District coffers to provide the easy life for his cronies. The district vault seems to be a grab bag for his inner circle of friends and associates. The more we pay the less that is accomplished. Ineptitude, dishonesty, incompetence and a lack of integrity, I think it suggests all those things.

The list of misinformation the previous letter combined with this revelation shows a superintendent and administration that seem to have no relationship with the truth and a board that has no intention of introducing them to it.

Letter To The School Board (Intermediate Schools)

A November 22, 2005 presentation to the Horseheads school board regarding the intermediate school program was interesting and impressive. It was well coordinated and carried off professionally. However, it was a sales presentation. Those educators marketed the work they had done to the board and administration and as such to the community. I think anyone in that situation would have done the same.

There were many impressive points presented. I guess individuals would find different items that stood out to them. I was taken with the peer tutoring. This might be similar to the CLASP program at the high school level I presented to the last two superintendents and to BOCES many years before. It is a good method to multiply resources to magnify results. Still, there was nothing there to tell us if its appearance on the long list was merely utilization of a seducing buzzword or actually a tool that adds something to the system.

Many of the words on the long list read were popular education buzzwords. While enamoring, there was nothing to show these things were being done, done effectively and having positive results. Without that knowledge, we could be spinning, our stories and our wheels.


135

Warm and fuzzy anecdotal information has a great impact in a formal presentation. It touches the audience right then and there. It makes some of them swoon, giving loving compliments to those presenters. It mesmerizes the audience watching the dog and pony show, rather than informs with the substance of what is being presented.

It had some board members and the superintendent showering such accolades that one would have thought we have overcome all the problems of the education failures of the last twenty years. It almost appeared as though some board members cascading compliments were going to break down in a downpour of tears.

Touching anecdotes are too often filler, making points the data can’t. The data passed before my eyes quite rapidly, but I thought I saw a trend. The testing data appeared as if the differences between 2001-02 and 2004-05 would actually be statistically insignificant. Overall, my impression of the testing data, quickly flashed up on the screen, was that the 2001-02 data was a little higher than the 04-05 test scores.

Because there was often a drop in score in 02-03 and 03-04, it was presented to the audience as an improvement when in actuality it was merely getting back to where we were. This data should be a red flag for everyone to ask is this program really working?

I believe 2001-02 was under the old 5th

and 6th

grade systems. If my quick impressions are correct, it would say after three years we are no farther ahead than before. It asks the questions, was all this disruption worth it? Have we just implemented another major program in hopes of a miracle because we are afraid to address the real problems? What are the additional costs of this program that seems to deliver the same results?

The movement of students from groups 1 and 2 to 3 and 4 was more difficult to see. However, my initial perception is there really was no significant change. There may have been noticeable changes in one or two single areas, but I think in the overall they averaged themselves out. I would say the data was again statistically insignificant.

This presentation, reminded me too much of the one I witnessed in regard to intensive scheduling. Emotionally satisfying information was poured out to the public to show the new program was working. Feel good song and dance productions entertained. Successes highlighted intensive scheduling even if the had nothing to do with it.

For instance, Dan Delorem’s success with his physics classes were pointed out as an intensive scheduling triumph, when in reality it was his long standing high quality personal performance. The disastrous effects the loss of science lab time was hidden until it came to a head several years later when 60 earth science students could not take the regents on semester because they had not completed their labs.

The heartwarming stories and the shows of solidarity in the endeavor sadly do not show whether the program is working. I was also concerned to hear that much of the data to be collected was determined recently. We were told this program was to be tracked yearly, upon implementation. This obviously did not happen. Like intensive scheduling this promise was never kept.

Data collection and tracking should be determined before such a program begins. It should be compiled on a yearly basis, with systems set up to handle it and all significant district data on a routine basis. Then there would be no need to waste $90 to $100 thousand a year on a data administrator position.

The enrichment programs seem impressive. Still, I can’t help but ask, are most of them a very expensive form of latchkey. Are we focusing much time, attention and resources on the elite student and failing the majority of those in the middle? Nothing was said about


136

the cost of these programs and could that money be better spent on basic subjects and skills for the majority of the students instead of fancy extras for the few.

Seven music teachers in the intermediate school sounds like an awful lot. While I am a great believer in music and art, we live in an age when good art and music is easily accessible to everyone. I wonder if we aren’t diverting too many resources to fun and games and failing to address the disciplines. Sometimes it appears we are expanding those areas we have achieved success and avoid those we are not mastering. That is a weak leadership approach.

I see in the vocal public more interest in extra curricular activities than I do in the important subjects all students need to be successful in life. Those taking the most advantage of them want them because they selfishly get more for themselves. We need to give attention to the average family that doesn’t make a lot of noise and expects their children to get a good, solid, basic education.

Pleasantries seem to be the direction we are heading in the district. Real solutions to real problems appear to be avoided. I requested a copy of the presentation so I could further evaluate my observations, but never received it.

I can say the district presentation on Block Scheduling at the December 19

th 2006

Horseheads school board meeting contained more data than the recent one regarding the intermediate school. It was only because the program has been in existence much longer. After tens years, more substantiated data should have appeared in the presentation.

Sadly, it used the data no more believably than previous district presentations. It did not exhibit anywhere near a quarter million dollars worth of data administrator expertise. Once more it was a marketing presentation, selling the district’s agenda regarding the program instead of using data to show whether or not it really works.

Again Marketing to Manipulate Rather Than Facing the Facts

Like the intermediate school presentation, block scheduling was a sales presentation, designed to sell the administration point of view and perspectives. Neither were compiled or conducted to get to the truth, quality or the validity of either program.

Yes, there was more data in the block scheduling presentation. Still, was there more good use of data? I would say not! There was more to use as camouflage, selectively placed to distract rather than clarify.

Anecdotal data was flowing like bullshit in a bar room. That’s what most anecdotal data is, testimonials from people lacking a clear head and a clear vision. Anecdotal data usually supports someone’s personal benefits or agendas, often hiding known weaknesses and failures.

Who Supports?

I heard the phrases, “I feel, I think, people say,” so often it cannot help but raise a red flag. How many, or how often the compliments for the program occur or how sincere they are we never know. Are they those people who have a stake in the system being the way it is, even if it may be inferior? We know teachers that support the program will be selected for


137

the presentation. We also know those who see the warts will be kept as far from the presentation podium as possible.

Less teaching time and smaller classes expanding the number of employees in the district certainly could be a motivation from strong union employees to support the program. That could also be motivation for support from lazy or inept educators. Using part of the eighty minutes for study hall when teachers are tired of teaching was not mentioned.

In academe, the home of the scientific method and statistics, the use of data, sadly seldom do we find honest use of data in general and in the district specifically! Data is used to distract, diffuse and derail, rather than show the full significance of actions taken and money spent. This obscures the issues that if addressed directly could establish programs that have a greatly positive impact. Even the math department leaned on the support of warm and fuzzy feelings and presented no data.

When I brought up the issue of additional costs, and asked was this the reason results were appearing to improve because additional resources have been applied, the answer was, “this wasn’t a presentation about costs.” However, the presentation did use the data to say the new structure was working. Without consideration to increased resources provided, such determinations are not valid.

The entire presentation was rendered useless because it avoided many of the most important variables. In essence it wasn’t a presentation to get at the facts, the truth. It was a sales presentation, done just to sell a false success and say it was done. Again, it was just going through the motions to con the public.

Wrong Reading of the Data (An Example)

False was the case of the data showing the sharp reduction in disciplinary actions. At the time it was recognized, the administration used the change in structure to begin strongly enforcing the rules that were on the books and not previously enforced. The leadership admitted this at the time. The sharp decrease in disciplinary actions, it was agreed, was because of enforcement of rules, not because the change in the structure.

As we can see, failure to do this presentation regularly and honestly has clouded the actual benefits or failures of the block scheduling program. Myth that cannot be proved is being presented as fact. We see that directly with the example of the presentation of disciplinary issues. It seems to have become another of those programs supported because we lack the ability to do anything else. We really don’t know if it is working.

Today’s Presentation No Different Than Almost A Decade Ago

Overall, this presentation wasn’t much different than the first follow-up presentation I saw on block scheduling eight or nine years ago. It wasn’t much different from the presentations prior to implementation to convince the district to go in the block scheduling direction.

Ten years of potential data did not make a difference. In fact it showed no more insight than one years worth of data years ago. Those things not presented speak louder than those that were! You tried to slip the improvement in disciplinary actions over as a result of the change a in structure as was attempted years ago. Back then one board member brought up the admission from the group that they began enforcing the rules more vigorously when


138

the structural change was made. Even at the beginning, Dan Delorem was presented as the shiny spot, and rightfully

so. While he did not present his data, I feel he is kept from presenting data because no other department has it. It would make them look bad. He did say the actions to improve other areas in science, (earth science) would be data driven.

However, his superior ideas, skills and approaches in ten years have not been put to use throughout the high school in an attempt to achieve his level of success. He possesses the leadership vision that should be within the sight of our next superintendent and all educators.

The presentation did make a great advance, or a great step back in one area, depending where you stand. That is the excuse about why we cannot use data to assess the block scheduling program. Carolyn Clack took ten minutes or more to tell us the comparison of the past to today could not be made. Not because it is merely an apples to oranges comparison, the excuse used in the past. She has ratcheted the failure up now. It has become an apples to fruit salad comparison.

These are elaborate comparisons to avoid being accountable. It looks impossible, because the responsibilities have been neglected for ten years. That data that was agreed to be collected on a yearly basis and presented was avoided. The program has been casually inspected when major problems arose, not monitored or evaluated for constant improvement, a slogan thrown out when a whimsical yet false vision of education is to be conveyed.

Legitimate Evaluation Nurtures Constant Improvement

To find ways to present the data would have revealed innovative methods of inspection, evaluation, repairing and enhancing the program. It would strengthen the abilities of the educators involved in such a task. How can educators challenge the students to improve, when they avoid challenging themselves? How can students be expected to step beyond the status quo, when educators embrace it? They do all in their power to escape accountability, even sabotaging programs so they do not advance!

If business and math educators don’t impart how to use data properly, they are not teaching the skills the students need in the real world. If research, the centerpiece of academe, is not conducted with integrity, searching for the truth instead of promoting agendas, what are we teaching to the children? We are teaching them dishonesty and selfishness.

The new high school principal made the comment about schools in the past teaching 75% of what was needed to go out into the world and be successful. He said, today they only teach 2%. I am not surprised.

It isn’t because so much more is needed. It is because educators have forsaken the basics for the flashy. They put so much emphasis on technology. Technology only provides tools; computers, calculators etc. These are tools that students can be taught to use at any time in life if they have been given the basic skills of learning. Today’s educators gravitate to the toys.

Those basic skills are reading, writing and mathematics. Memorizing times and division tables, learning how to plan a project from beginning to end are important skills. Honestly analyzing the success of the project, fixing and fine tuning failures to turn them into successes. Critical thinking, self-inspection and evaluation are part of those skill packages.


139

This cannot be done if one arrogantly sits on their inflated ego and says it cannot be done as Doctor Clack has done again with her brilliant fruit salad speech. She is modeling failure, avoidance and giving up, not stretching and reaching beyond to achieve the difficult. She has embraced the status quo because she has profited greatly from it.

Riding the slogan of continuous improvement, regarding block scheduling after ten years is just a hollow cheer. Those hollow cheers seem to constitute too much of the Horseheads School District leadership style. As is shown with these presentations, education leadership is enamored with style over substance. Whether a program is really working or not, is not of importance, as long as we can make it look like it is working.

We still cannot show the block scheduling or intermediate school is actually making a positive impact. We really don’t know. We sell it as though it does as ten years pass and know no better today than we did twelve years ago when this was sold to the district.

I again requested the formal written presentations given to the board for the Intermediate School and Block Scheduling, so I could further review the content and assess whether my observations during the presentation are fair and correct.

I received one of the letters to parents teachers sent regarding the “Everyday Mathematics Program”. While at this point I do not have enough knowledge to go one way or the other with this program, I have seen rhetoric and red flags that would make me wary of moving ahead with the program. Much of the rhetoric is so similar to that when the block scheduling and the intermediate school were being sold to the district and to this day cannot be shown to be successful.

I present them as food for thought, to promote the critical thinking and problem solving concepts. I fear we push convenient agendas with no attention to the facts.

The teacher’s letter said, “We feel obligated to inform you that this program has been piloted by all Ridge Road teachers this past school year. The staff, as a whole, feels strongly that this program meets the needs of our students and exceeds the standards set by New York State. Unfortunately, this program is somewhat controversial and is under close scrutiny. We thought we would take this time to outline the pros and cons of the program for you.

Pros: 1. Exceeds the NYS standards

Under the Pros, this letter stated the “Everyday Mathematics Program” exceeds state standards. In the body of the letter (the introduction) sent to parents it states, “The staff, as a whole, feels strongly that this program meets the needs of our students and exceeds the standards set by New York State.”

I have to question, are these feelings, or are they facts? I have often seen majorities having feelings about something only to find when the data came in, the feelings were wrong. The staff as a whole is comprised of how many people and what percentage of those people agreed? Is this evaluation made up of anecdotal, testimonials only? Is there any real data involved?

I find it difficult to believe there is no one that disagrees with the program, or at least has some reservations. I have seen when doing a presentation on a program in the


140

Horseheads School District there is a strong effort to bring out a flood of supporters to trumpet the program and no effort to allow the voicing of a contrary view. This has been true at the beginning of block scheduling and at the most recent presentation. The intermediate school followed the same pattern at the recent presentation. It causes me to question if a program can stand up to scrutiny and questioning. If not is it that good? Good programs can stand up to inspection.

There does not seem to be a safe environment in the district for those that disagree with the direction the administration wants to go. There seems to be intimidation directed toward those that would rationally argue against. I have seen such intimidation first hand and have been warned it was applied administration to teacher and teacher to teacher during the adoption of other programs including block scheduling.

2. Teaches math concepts that are developmentally appropriate.

The teachers touted that Everyday math teaches math concepts that are developmentally appropriate, “reinforces mathematical concepts through avariety of learning styles and Makes connections to real life!”

Shouldn’t all text books and programs teach concepts that are developmentally appropriate? Isn’t this a big part of what today’s education is about. Isn’t teaching math and all subjects conceptually through a variety of learning styles part of the education process of educators over the past twenty and thirty years? Hasn’t this been a part of the increased education (Masters Degree) for which we have been making connections to real life been at the foundation of public education for many years, perhaps always? Shouldn’t this be the focus of public education, to prepare students for “real life”? Shouldn’t all courses and texts do this? Is this something that has fallen through the cracks? If so, shouldn’t it be incorporated into the overall education strategy? Should we be bringing in people from the community to assist in this, since being an educator is only a very small facet of “real life”?

The letter went on to say, “The program spirals, meaning concepts are constantly being reinforced throughout the school year as opposed to other math programs that teach math concepts in separate Units. For example, other programs may teach the concept of "time" in one unit and it will not be revisited in subsequent units.”

Shouldn’t spiraling also be a common sense basic strategy of education? Couldn’t this be done by devising problems about subjects such as time in other mathematical units of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division etc.? Perhaps, even crossing over to other subjects like combining lessons in math and science. This should be a standard tool of creativity by educators. This maximizes teaching time and lessons. If only one issue is addressed in each lesson, it increases the time it takes to accomplish the task.

The teachers say, “Everyday Math provides students with opportunities for enrichment and remediation.”

Are opportunities for enrichment and remedial help contrary to other texts and programs? The program doesn’t control this, the educators do. It seems these opportunities


141

should be educational standards through teacher expertise. What does this program do special to create those opportunities? Shouldn’t those things be easily incorporated into other such programs?

Like spiraling, real life connections and addressing a variety of learning styles this should also be incorporated into the basic strategy of education?

They go on to say, it stresses thinking/problem solving skills.

Come on now! What specifically is this program doing that motivates and mobilizes these skills? These things must be recognized. If not, the programs may have the ability to do so if conducted properly, however, without the proper understanding of how these mechanisms are triggered, they may not be implemented and take hold among the skills of the students. With the understanding of such mechanisms they can be implemented in any program. These are clearly issues of educator competence, not program effectiveness.

They continue the marketing saying, “It teaches that there are multiple strategies for solving problems.”

Critical thinking and problem solving naturally imply there are multiple strategies for problem solving. Therefore the understanding of the mechanisms is critical also. The teaching of independent thinking ensures there are multiple strategies for problem solving.

However it seems educators are not as flexible as we have paid them to be. In fact their unions and associations have removed those skills flexibility requires because they have been indoctrinated into the rigid and selfish thinking of a collective mentality that always views their own position first, then makes judgments based on what is best for their own personal and professional profit and power. Teachers laud, “ Is FUN! The children enjoy math. “

They say about this math program, “Is FUN! The children enjoy math.” This is what I worry is the primary reason for pushing this program. While I was not at the meeting, I was told one parent said they didn’t need the data, because their child likes it. Most children would rather have soda with their meals than water. That doesn’t make soda good for them. In fact, soda has been shown by the data to be bad for them causing ADD, obesity and malnutrition. Do we give them soda because that is what they want?

Historically reading, writing and arithmetic have been categorized as disciplines. The memorization required to master these skills requires discipline. Being disciplined is not always fun. Sometimes it is downright difficult for some students to master these skills. However, if they develop the discipline, endure the pain, they master these skills, an accomplishment. Accomplishment requires discipline. Those accomplishments in spite of the difficulty build an individual child’s self esteem.

Is this program popular with teachers because it makes their job easier even if the results are worse? Is this why it is seen as better for the children because it is easier for the educator? Is the comfort of this program actually a weakening factor? Is it blunting the challenge trading the potential for accomplishment and self esteem for safety and comfort?


142

When one looks at the Pros of the program it looks like all the pros have to do with feelings, or processes that should already be incorporated into the education process. Looking at the Cons it looks like the absence of anything concrete about the program. This really makes the decision making process questionable. Cons:

Teachers say, “Written assessments are weak, however there is a CD that allows teachers to create or modify written assessments for each unit. Many of the assessments provided are brief, but can be easily modified.”

If these written assessments need to be modified and enhanced with the new program, couldn’t this effort be done with another or present program and take the best of the proposed program to build a better one?

They admit, “There is limited data to support increased test scores in both middle school and high school students. However, the program is approximately only ten years old and few students actually qualify for this kind of long range study.”

I find the statements about limited data to support the program to be very disturbing. That data is sparse and apparently flimsy after ten (10) years raises a red flag to me. If there are no indicators of improvement during this span, there probably is no improvement.

They point out, “The program requires parent involvement and some critics believe this to be a negative. As a school, we have found parents to be very receptive and supportive of this aspect of the program.”

That the program requires parent involvement is a two sided coin. Parent involvement should always be part of an educational goal. While I agree, parent involvement is a very good and a positive thing, it cannot be depended upon in all cases. School programs must be implemented for success based on the premise there may be no parent involvement. Yes, it should still encourage parent involvement, and effort be made to cultivate it, that is a major plus, but it should not be leaned upon, or made essential to the success of the program.

The pilot project teachers say, “The program has been labeled as a "fluffy" program. Everyday Math is fun, hands on and enjoyable to students, however, it is not lacking in content. Computation is weak. The computations that they are referring to are drill and practice work (worksheets). First of all, computation is completed on a daily basis through use of tile math journal, slate work and/or teacher provided resources. It's always an option for teachers to supplement any math program with additional materials.” The teachers said, “it is not lacking in content.” Then they go on to contradict themselves saying, “Computation is weak. The computations that they are referring to are drill and practice work (worksheets).”

This all seems to be contradictory? Couldn’t the tile math journal, slate work and/or teacher provided resources be utilized to supplement any program and therefore enhance


143

effectiveness. Isn’t it always an option for teachers to supplement any math program, or any program with additional materials to make it stronger? Isn’t it best to select a program that requires fewer adjustments so those with lesser creative skills have all the assistance available and those with greater creative skills could spend more time making creative adjustments that could be more innovative and far reaching?

Some say this is a (curriculum change. A text book is just an avenue or tool used to teach a curriculum. The curriculum is aligned with the New York State Standards. The changes that people are probably referring to are those that require teachers to alter their teaching styles to fit the needs of the program. However, keep in mind; these changes ,are positive changes and aid teachers in differentiating the instruction in their (classrooms to meet the needs of all of their students).

It sounds like teaching educators to be more flexible and adaptable is at the basis of this program. Those things in the program likely will not teach this. Those goals could be achieved with almost any program as a back drop if there were a real desire to do it. Without understanding of these skills in detail or addressing them directly, they may not even be able to take advantage of the mechanisms in the program to make hose changes.

I think we in the Horseheads School District are again looking for a structure change that will change behaviors. I said, when block scheduling was being promoted, this process usually fails. If you want to change actions, you must directly and consciously address those actions. Changing the ruling structure will not miraculously change those destructive or conflicting behaviors.

The Teachers concluded, “We wanted to provide: you, as parents, with the opportunity to support what we feel is an outstanding program for your child. We: have always made decisions based on what is in the best interest of the children. Although this program requires a lot of: prep on the part of the teacher, we feel that it is time well spent and the students benefit as a result. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Your support at the Board of Education Meeting on March 13th is needed and will be greatly appreciated.”

The teachers followed up a very shaky analysis of the program with a resounding endorsement. They ignore the lack of data and once more the district goes on their feelings and desires. This is never in the best interest of the children as they say. Particularly when we have shown time and again educators, a collective of the education industry, base what is best for the children on what is best for themselves. Their own professional and personal profit and power is the basis of which they judge what is best for the children. Everyday Math

Watching CSPAN 2 on Saturday September 2, 2006 Joel Turtel, author of Public Schools, Public Menace pointed out education approaches so flawed that dedicated teachers stood little chance of being successful. One of those flawed approaches was called Fuzzy Math, or “Everyday Mathematics”, a known failure, recently rammed through and adopted by the Horseheads School District.


144

Mr. Turtel compared these teaching methods with the training of horseback riding, “Putting the rider on the horse backwards, there is no way they could learn to ride,” he points out. “Everyday Math” does just that by failing to teach the basics, how to sit on the horse properly is necessary, so you can see where you are going. So are the basics of language and math necessary to understand where you are headed and why you are headed there.

These programs do not only leave students starting at zero with no positive affects, they dig them into a hole below zero, inflicting upon the students negative affects. In other words, these teaching methods are not only ineffective, they are destructive. They teach ways of thinking that will become an anchor the students will have to drag for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Turtel reveals the call for more money always comes when these public education weaknesses are pointed out. He also points out huge sums of money have already been provided and results have not improved. If anything they have degraded. He also states, if the basic approach is flawed, more money cannot change anything.

Professor of Mathematics Stephen Wilson at Johns Hopkins University and now at the US Department of Education wrote, “Since you are probably stuck with bad standards preparing kids for good standards, you probably want a program, (or should want a program) that prepares kids for good high school standards. Everyday Mathematics is not that program. It does not prepare kids for algebra. It is very weak on fractions. Kids cannot come out of the programs knowing standard algorithms (Rules of Math) well enough to proceed in math (without outside intervention).

Professor Wilson excoriates Everyday Mathematics writing, “I like to say Everyday Mathematics is the perfect compromise. We think algorithms (Rules of Math) should be taught and the opposition thinks they should not be learned. EM teaches algorithms (Rules of Math) in such a way no one learns them. Everyone should be happy. I also label it the best of the worst. If you must have a bad reform program, it is the best one. Must you have a bad reform program?” He quips.

Professor Wilson finishes, highlighting his admonition, “You didn’t say if you had any kids left. If you do and you end up with Everyday Mathematics, then educate them yourself.”

Board member and president John Abbott, a math PhD. and professional, sought input from Professor Wilson of Johns Hopkins University and the US Department of Education. He received these grave warnings about the Everyday Math’s failings. He shared that information with fellow board member Lynn Eusden and the entire Horseheads School Board.

Still, this is what we are giving our children; hollow and failing programs. While I received materials on Everyday Math that were used by the board in the

decision making process, from Superintendent Congon I saw nothing in there that was concrete. Like the district teachers in their pilot project, it was a lot of feelings pushed by the developer of the program at the University of Chicago.

The one telling thing told to me by several people (board members) was Mrs. Eusden saying, If my child was going to be exposed to it, I wouldn’t vote for it.” Her child wasn’t, and she did vote for it.


145

Change does not always mean change for the better or even for good. Making changes, in essence throwing the dice, will not fix deficiencies. Fear of addressing problems only makes them bigger.

New programs, like changes in institutional structure do not magically fix inherent education problems if those problems are not directly addressed. Institution of miracle fix programs or reorganizations cannot strengthen weaknesses or patch trouble spots without focused effort on those specific areas. Without defining such problems, assessing the needs to fix them and applying remedial actions, fixes can only be attempted halfheartedly, they cannot be achieved. They must be addressed directly, evaluated and adjusted as necessary to succeed.

The throwing spaghetti at the wall method of programming doesn’t work. It has come to the point in education to where the word program has changed. It means something more like facade or dog and pony show. It relates more to show over substance.

CHAPTER 14, THE FINAL ENCOUNTER May 11, 2006

It never ceases to amaze me the thoughts generated from a school board encounter. Perhaps confrontation is a better word. It seems contact with the board, administration or their processes are always a confrontation. You must be on your toes, in the middle of the ring, poised, ready to fight. If not a punch could blindside you, ambushing you from anywhere.

I look forward to when I get this all analyzed, categorized and filed away so I don’t have to give thought to it any more. I am really tired of looking into these behaviors. I guess my instincts sense there is still something here of importance.

The candidate forum Wednesday evening was really quite dossal. It usually is, but this year I expected to be much more aggressive. Perhaps my dog Brandy dying took some of the fight out of me. Then, I have said in the past, God seems to watch over me in these situations and has me perform just as I should. I really had little fight left in me, but it worked out for the best.

When Joyce Budney, the former board president, came over to attack me, my reflexes took over. “Mr. Furnkranz, you this and you that,” She threwout accusations of me not having integrity because of the cartoons I drew and distributed. She accused me of not having integrity because of personal attacks. She never mentions the validity of my accusations. Proof I put before them of what I have said.

She accused, “You cannot take criticism.” She said, “You cannot admit when you are wrong.” Getting in my face and trying to intimidate me like one of her third grade students she said, “You don’t like it when someone stands up to you!”

I tried to point out to her, it seemed to me, she was describing herself. She was furious an individual was standing up and questioning the power of the board, the administration and the school district. They, wielding the power of the district, their unions and associations and the massive national education industry whined and attacked me when I


146

stood up to them. With all the advantages of their power and abuse of it, they were crying like babies, bullies confronted, because they were being challenged.

The district newsletter is preferential giving more space to preferential (Yes Stamp) candidates. They hold concerts on budget voting nights to make sure parents benefiting from the music programs are there a demographic they know will vote for the budget. Traffic congestion caused by the concerts impedes the ability of the elderly to get there, a fixed income demographic more likely to be adversely affected by the budget. One local paper, clearly in bed with the district allowed a candidate to support other candidates in their personal candidate biography. This is a fraction of the power they hold and abuse, then.complain about being confronted by an individual!

She admitted to me, saying it made her angry when she heard people quoting me. As if the ideas of her group, her friends, her peers are the only ones worthy of being quoted. An elite arrogance appeared to make them think only their point of view should be heard and they had the right to sensor others. This elite arrogance seemed to allow them to use hypocrisy as a tool and censor any debate. That is exactly what they have done, curtail and censor debate.

It never seemed to bother them if they were shown to be wrong in a meeting. They’d deny. If held accountable there, it wouldn’t matter, it would never get beyond, and they could rationalize misinformation, even lies. It is the old question, if the tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, is there sound. One might address a lie from school administration or board members in the same way. Even if there are a few people there who hear, only a few are aware and there is little consequence for a lie. If questioned about the lie, another lie might fix it so it will never have to be admitted a lie had been told. It might even come down to telling those people that heard lie, they really didn’t hear what they think the heard.

This is why cartoons became such an integral part of the process. Catching administration and board members in lies did not deter them. It did not even embarrass them. They would just change history to suit their needs; their truth, their desire for absolution.

Embarrassing them was the only thing they understood, something they would react to. Showing their shenanigans in cartoon form, illustrating their ridiculous behavior was the only way to exert influence; pressure. It brought attention to who they really were. They could lie and deny about everything else, but the cartons were an undeniable reflection in the mirror that made them look at themselves. Being made to look silly made them angry and brought embarrassment to them.

The people laughing at them did bother them. But the people weren’t laughing just because of caricatures in cartoons, but the cartoons caught their outrageous behaviors that the community needed to laugh at or they would cry. Cry because they were so victimized by the dishonesty of district leadership.

Former board president Budney said I was sneaky for passing out my newsletters containing the cartoons. She seemed to miss that they had printed on them, “written, illustrated and published by Gerald J. Furnkranz”. I passed most of them out in person, going door to door. She said it was also sneaky, implying it was cowardly that I didn’t pass them out directly to them. You can see the way their formulated thinking works to characterize in a negative light on someone that would stand against them.


147

When I did pass them out at a board meeting, she sat their in her seat and pouted. She demanded I tell people, this was not from the board when it was obvious to anyone it was not from the board. Then she would go on a rant condemning what I had done, with no chance for me to rebut. So, if I passed them out in front of them, I was a bad person and if I didn’t, I was a bad person.

I didn’t stop because of her behavior. I thought the public seeing her antics was healthy. Initially I did those things out of respect, feeling I should confront and face them with my findings before I gave them to the public. After a while I lost that respect for them and felt they did not deserve a peek at what was coming next. I also felt I was loosing some of the impact by warning them. After all, they had no problem blindsiding me or someone else. Isn’t it funny how they think they deserved such respect, but failed to give respect to others?

And she called me sneaky? I remember while on the board I met with her out of courtesy to tell her I was voting against three issues coming up for vote at the next board meeting. I respected her enough I wanted her to know why I was doing what I was doing.

I had written up my explanation of how each of the three issues were related and why I was voting against all three. I had a detailed explanation of why I was taking the action I was taking. I wanted the board to know and I wanted the public to know.

At that next meeting she attempted to silence me as I read it. She said I could only speak on the issue that was up for vote. I could not make reference to the relationship of to the other issues. The board enforced her will. Fortunately I had written it so it could be broken down into three parts, and I could use a section for each item.

Yet she’d let Al Dedrick go on for twenty minutes saying practically nothing, but she tried to keep me from speaking to the point and in detail why I was voting no. Then she and the board went on to say I couldn’t have my statement entered into the minutes, something I had been commended for only a few months before.

For Joyce to accuse me of being sneaky was hypocrisy. She used my sense of fair play to blind side me, and now she complained that she wasn’t giving the courtesy she thought she deserved. She was given those courtesies until she proved through her behaviors she didn’t deserve them. She was not worthy of them. I felt she has deserved what she received, even the cartoons. The cartoons depict her behavior and that of others quite accurately. I have no regrets about any of them because they all depicted existing behaviors.

Another interesting occurrence was at Monday’s board meeting. Superintendent Congdon came to me to talk. He suggested to me we both had made mistakes. Once more pointing out to me I had gotten misinformation from the wrong person. Even though they had been told numerous times, most of the information I have used had come from them. They just weren’t going to believe their words revealed their attitudes and they were the source of my doubts.

I reminded that I told him if he showed me where I was wrong, I would apologize publicly. He said he would do that someday and I would owe him many apologies. I asked, “Why don’t you show me now?”

Then he tried to put me on a guilt trip, saying he’d never forgive me for what I said about his son.

I challenged him right there and confronted, “I never said anything about your son. I asked a question about rumors I heard about his hiring. I said if true, it didn’t look good,


148

particularly with the apparent trend of cronyism that was appearing in the administrations actions. This is just one of many questions asked that were never answered.

I think Mr. Congdon needed to see it his way to justify that he was the victim as Joyce needed to see herself as the victim. They could say they were being treated unjustly so they could avoid looking at their own questionable actions. This helped them to see themselves as the victim rather than the wrong doer. These people behave in very similar ways, acting out the same patterns over and over.

Congdon ended the conversation by saying, “You have some good ideas, everyone says that. It is your approach that turns people off.” As I walked away from Joyce she said, “You have some good ideas, but your actions put people off.” The union president, along with several other members of the board, have used that same talking point line to me.

When I was part of the board, I was assigned chair of a committee to develop a process for board goal setting and achievement, something the board had failed at year after year. A system was developed and approved by the board run by Joyce Budney. As we walked out the door she patted us on the back for our achievement. The system was thrown out before even trying it, by allowing the previous superintendent to implement another stalling process. When I expressed my concern to her, she expressed the same concern, but noting was done. Weak, devious, dishonest, I really don’t know. I just knew I couldn’t trust her or any of them that used the key words about good ideas except for presentation. It is just a ruse for stringing people along.

Congdon did the same thing asking for help. I gave him specific concrete ideas for improvement. When I proposed the District Finance and Audit Committee, and basically did most of the ground work, he couldn’t sabotage it fast enough. This was a committee that could have provided great help to the district, but might have resolved desired ineptitude that aided cronyism.

I question! If they are good ideas, aren’t the district leaders adult enough to use them for the good of the district? Aren’t they leaders enough to take good ideas that would help even if they don’t like the presentation or the person presenting. Or are they petty little children, selfish and self-centered in their actions? I think the answer to that question is clear. They do act like little children, or high school kids in their cliques, laughing at and demeaning the people that didn’t go along with them.

They can’t yet see I can see through them. The, “you have good ideas but statement”, is designed to flatter and get you to again think they might listen to you and perhaps implement the ideas. Holding out the carrot on the telescoping stick so you will always try but never be allowed to achieve effective results is deception. It is to once again open the opportunity to string a person along. An excellent strategy for a dishonest person, that has no intention of accomplishing anything, yet plans to take the money and/or the glory and run.

They have set the battle lines. They have dictated the actions I have had to take. It will continue this way until progress is made. Not promises or feigning, but concrete actions that are long in place and working, so they can’t be pulled away. That is where it will have to be before I will trust their word.

Because they have long proven, their word is no good. They cannot be trusted. Broken trusts are not repaired easily as the professional liars usually expect them to be. Then, hopefully this book comes to an end and a much more positive book can be written; a book that describes the right steps to take to do things the right way.


149

Even if that positive book is written, this one that shows the ugly side is just as important. It shows the symptoms of a dishonest system. It is a reminder of how things can turnout when integrity is given no honor or respect. Epilogue May 8, 2007

I saw Joyce Budney at last nights Budget Hearing for the district. I had to ask her, since she attacked me last year about integrity, how she felt about the illegal campaigning that was in process at the very time of her attack.

She began, her eyes squinting cobra like at me, saying “you can’t accept authority.” She went on to saying, “you’re sick,” several times. She again said I lacked integrity because I put my newsletter in mailboxes. I was very conscious of the legality of that. I stuck them in cracks and crevices around the mailbox. I put them in the curved hooks beneath mailboxes hooked to the houses. I did put them in mailboxes if the door was missing. I don’t believe I opened a mailbox door and put my newsletter directly inside. I passed out 2500, but don’t believe I made that mistake.

She was clearly going to absolve the dishonest actions of the district because the Education Commissioner ruled in their favor. He didn’t say what they did was not wrong, but that didn’t matter to her.

This is the problem with token and sloppy actions taken by the NYS Education Commissioner Richard Mills. The token slaps on the wrist are not seen as pointing out wrong doing. When the appeal is dismissed, educators see it as absolution for their unethical an illegal actions. The only reason it was dismissed was because it is impossible to get enough signed affidavits to say the vote would have been changed because of the dishonest actions. It is more than absolution, but condoning, supporting even encouraging, saying what they did illegally is perfectly fine.

That is how former board president Joyce Budney convinces herself dishonest actions aren’t. She can personally attack, like a spoiled child, and justify her dishonesty. Or sage librarian Carolyn Clack can say she doesn’t think the illegal campaigning was dishonest. It wasn’t even wrong, she wouldn’t do it, but she didn’t think it was wrong for others to participate. Both educators have not merely blurred the line between honesty and integrity. They have erased it to satisfy their pompous arrogance and hypocrisy.

I let her know I felt she was a major part of the incident. She declared, “I wasn’t even on the board when it happened.” I told her, “It was the character of the leadership she imparted, taught to her fellow

board members, while she was board president.” I was compelled to tell Joyce how dishonest I thought that was.

She stood up in an attempt to intimidate me. Her eyes squinted again like a venomous viper, I had come to see her as. She sputtered, “What did you say?” Then she called me sick once more. Indulging even farther in the personal attacks as she said, “Even your family thinks you’re crazy.”

She wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know. Since mom died, I had no support for my actions taking on the school district and education. I am alone, organizing all these things in my head without help. It is difficult. I have no one to bounce thoughts or ideas off. It is a tedious and sometimes wearing process.


150

But my family’s characterization of crazy probably would not be the same as her own. They would consider me crazy just for wasting my time and bringing ridicule to myself. Then again, who knows? I might be? That really doesn’t matter either. A number of other people I know would consider me crazy for continuing the fight against a monolithic institution like the education industry.

Why would I do this? Just to be disliked or even hated by a majority of people. I don’t think that makes sense. Then, I have come to a point I really don’t care if people like me or not. I probably don’t care if some of them hate me. In fact I may even see greater value in myself by the hate of these dishonest people than their approval.

Perhaps because what I have suspected is turning out more and more to be true. Once you see such dishonesty in the education system, if you have any integrity, you have and obligation to confront it. I need no support. My mom taught me right from wrong.

Joyce looked me in the eye again and squinted in an attempt to intimidate, showing her disdain. I guess it works with some people. She said, “You’re a weasel!”

I continued to stare her in the eye without flinching and replied, “No, you are the weasel!”

When we were finishing up she tried to rewrite history, proving she was the weasel. She told me we never finished the goals of the board committee to set up a system to develop, establish and carry out board goals. That I backed out.

I was taken aback. I recorded it many years back and shared it with the board. I know it could be found in board minutes. Just recently I found a folder with the recommendations. I could do no more than call her a liar and walk away with a clear conscience.

CHAPTER 15 – ILLEGAL CAMPAIGNING

One could not have devised a better ending to a novel on a corrupt school district and education industry. Illegal campaigning to keep undesirable community members off of an arrogant and exclusive school board would just have seemed too unreal. That’s how far the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Horseheads School District had spiraled out of control. What clearly looked like an organized and concerted effort to stack the board with like thinking members was characterized as a mistake by the board and administration. They lied to keep the impression of a mistake and the NYS Commissioner of Education swore to it in his incompetent ruling on the issue.

Honest analysis of the illegal campaigning exposed a dishonest leadership in the school district. That is if anyone really wanted to look into it and learn the truth. Most people do not want to know the truth about the corruption in education. They don’t want to believe it, because if the education industry has gotten so dirty, what is happening in the rest of our society.


151

Background On Budget Campaigning & Voting Irregularities 2006

The evening of May 15th 2006 I received a message on my answering machine from

Superintendent William Congdon, of the Horseheads School District, concerning campaigning for the budget and specific school board candidates in district classrooms. He said, “We’re doing our best to correct the situation, see on WETM.” He later said, “We’re trying to correct the situation the best we can.”

The truth is he was carrying out damage control to cover his butt and those of his cronies. Pandora’s box was opened and clear advantages handed to the Brinthaupt, Eusden and Searles Ticket, that supported current district actions, and Superintendent Congdon’s own agenda of getting the budget passed, by these actions.

History Of Budget Campaigning & Voting Irregularities 2004 to 2006 Budget Campaigning & Voting 2004

Voting irregularities were just one area of behaviors that make questionable the

integrity of district leadership. A pattern has been established in voting and campaigning


152

irregularities since Sharon Reed the previous business manager was dismissed, by district counsel and escorted out by police in the dark of night on the eve of the budget vote in 2004.

After she spent the long day running the school board election and the budget vote in the district, carried out the vote count, late into the evening, wrapping up the event, they dismissed her from her position. They exploited her using her for an effort they could not manage and then axed her at the end of the day, superintendent Congdon sending the district lawyer in to do his dirty work. I mean the end of the day, darkness upon them in the long days of late spring.

The district has displayed major and increasing lapses of honesty and integrity since that dark night. More and more it seems like she was swept out because her character was the sentinel that kept district dishonesty in check. Budget Campaigning & Voting 2005

In 2005 the misalignment of names on a voting machine in Big Flats was a major

concern. The misalignment left one position unnamed. Not surprisingly, that was the person who was most critical of the district. Machines were down in two locations during rush time voting.

Voting Machines were down during the rush hours at two schools. One was Big Flats where the misalignment was finally acted upon and Ridge Road. Poor planning, incompetence, dishonesty or manipulation or all may have motivated the incident.

This threat of cutting music, art and sports programs in classrooms, at concerts and even in the newspapers, on the television by the superintendent if the budget did not pass were totally false. Those items had been made immune to cuts by state law. Superintendent Congdon used falsely and allowed to be used these false statements to coerce community members into voting for the budget.

Concerts were scheduled at voting sites the night of the budget vote. This tactic fits in strategically with the threats of the loss of music programs. Parents with vested interest in the music programs are encouraged to be there by having a concert encouraging parents present to vote for the budget, planted in their minds music will be cut if the budget goes down.

The elderly who are more affected by the wasteful spending of the district have it made more difficult for them to vote. Parking places filled forces the elderly to park farther from the voting sites. Many seniors with mobility problems are faced with the prospects of walking much farther. The journey is made that much more difficult and dangerous for the elderly by the increased automobile traffic and congestion the concerts cause. These concerts are planned eight or nine months in advance for the day of the budget vote.

A barrage of NYSUT (New York State United Teachers union) commercials showing little children concerned with the loss of music and art if budgets are voted down coordinates well with the scheduled concerts at voting locations. The superintendent made this same false statement on TV when he knew those items would not be cut. These concerts target and mobilized the partisan groups teachers and administrator unions and associations most want to manipulate with their massive marketing campaigns and hindered those that would be the least inclined to succumb to their scare tactics.

These two occurrences in NYSUT commercials and concerts at voting locations in conjunction bring the NYSUT private commercials into the public schools, manipulating


153

eased access to those benefiting most from escalating budgets and baring access to those benefiting least.

When the superintendent was confronted with the issue of educator’s political agendas being perpetuated in the classrooms and at concerts, he promised he would take care of it, like he promised often on other issues. It happened again in 2006 with much more serious breaches! Again we are promised it will be addressed and it will not happen again?

The 2005 incidents of campaigning in classrooms and at concerts also appear as evidence. Horseheads School Board Meeting Minutes of the Meeting of May 9th 2005, community member, Brian Henry of Lemae Drive revealed an incident taking place in the high school. He stood up to inform the board and superintendent that “His daughter came home from the High School concerned that programs would be cut next year. He didn’t appreciate teachers using children for this purpose!”

Superintendent Congdon addressed the question, according to the same Minutes of the Meeting of May 9th 2005, answering, “The district and the board agree that involving children in this way is inappropriate, and this has been addressed with all staff.” Apparently this issue was either not addressed or certainly not addressed properly or effectively.

We are talking about five of the seven schools in the district where evidence of illegal campaigning has surfaced. Evidence of this widespread misconduct appears to be far more pervasive than has actually been caught. The extent of this misconduct could have easily swayed the 44 votes required to defeat the budget. However, such massive illegal interference into the election process could have easily affected the outcome of the school board election even though the margins were greater. Budget Campaigning & Voting Irregularities 2006

On May 15th 2006 it came to light we had an issue of letters being passed out to the

students in student classes at the Ridge Road School, telling parents how to vote on the budget and who to vote for the board of education. In spite of the administration’s word that it occurred only at Ridge Road Elementary, it came to light in another television report on May 22, 2006 a similar letter was produced and distributed by the Center Street PTO. Like the Ridge Road letter, this was also passed out to children in the classrooms. Obviously this behavior was much more prevalent than first suspected. Rather than the miscommunication claimed by the Horseheads School Board and administration, it appeared to be a well organized political marketing campaign.

It was rumored, somewhat similar campaigns were conducted in the intermediate and middle schools. The difference was those were carried out by the use of Email. Evidence of additional campaigning in these other schools was discovered by Lori Cass. She talked to a parent that had a child in the intermediate school, and received an Email with similar campaigning information as the hard copies distributed in the Ridge Road and Center Street schools. The parent did not want to go on record for fear of retribution. Lori witnessed this and had it notarized. This Email sent from the middle school is evidence this incident of illegal campaigning does include both the intermediate and middle schools, both previously rumored to have participated in extensive Email campaigns.


154

As this great effort of this illegal campaigning unfolded, it had also come to light that announcements to support the budget were again made this year at several school concerts, as had occurred the past few years. One school principal stood up, interrupting the concert to make his plea for voting for the budget.

Later it was discovered the RIDGE ROAD PTO REMINDER obtained from a FOIL request sent to the district revealed that candidate David Searles was given audience in the Ridge Road Elementary library, “on May 10, 2006, two weeks before the vote, to discuss his platform for the Horseheads Board of Education.”

Incumbent board member Mark Brinthaupt was also a speaker at that meeting in the school library making disparaging remarks about other candidates. Brinthaupt a purveyor of attacking people behind the closed doors of executive session, was a self-proclaimed sage of school board rules and policies. Always lauding his status as a twenty year board member, he either was not aware of the illegalities of his actions, which seems unlikely, or he acted illegally in spite of knowing them for political reasons. He would seem to skirt around issues, but avoid debating issues face to face as he did on this one.

Superintendent Congdon’s inaction in failing to address the using of district resources for promoting their political agenda in the past not only failed to stop such actions, but enabled and encouraged them. The wholesale misconduct that developed is evidence. His inaction sent the signal what he wanted. He clearly wanted his agenda to be promoted in this way. In anyway that was to his advantage. The dishonest and illegal behavior supported him and this illegality.

It showed clearly many educators in the district, from administrators to teachers had no inhibitions about marketing their political philosophies and values to the children. For selfish motives, they indoctrinate children to their beliefs in the classrooms. The illegality of their actions has no bearing on their behaviors. Even if not illegal, it was unethical, immoral and selfish.

Candidate David Searles was given extra space in the district newsletter to make his case. He was given almost twice as much space as anyone else. It is clear from these actions he was the administration darling of the non-incumbents.

Inaccurate absentee ballots were sent out. There could have been several reasons for this. Lack of competence might be one. When you see the scheming that takes place in other areas in our district, one might conjecture this was done to dupe and confuse the public once more. The lower budget figure on the first ballot might be to trick the voters into voting for the lower figure. It might be another trick to invalidate the elderly vote. Perhaps it is stretching things, but too many board and administrative actions point to this kind of scheming.

Sharon Jackson, a committed community member organized the candidate’s forum. The district did not want the community hearing from certain people and clearly was going to avoid having the usual yearly forum. After all, with the additional advertising the Best candidates were given in the illegal letters, the district newsletter and the newspaper, they didn’t need the forum to get their message out. Too many actions of district leadership appeared to be geared toward tilting the playing field in their favor.

The announcement of the candidate forum was given to the Star-Gazette as occurring in the library it was given to the Leader as the cafeteria. While small, these mistakes occur too often to be acceptable and often appear to be devised to confuse and sabotage.


155

Again, concerts scheduled at voting sites the night of the budget vote, scheduled nine months in advance, when district calendars were printed. Community members had expressed concerns about these concerts in June 2005, immediately after the budget vote. Board member Dedrick’s response to these community concerns was his statement as to whether the concerts had an affect on the vote, “We’ll never know, will we?”

So far the evidence shows the BEST group only benefited from this unethical behavior, their political interests pushed and promoted. I wanted it investigated to determine whether or not district leadership sanctioned, promoted or participated in these dishonest actions.

Sabryna Reed, president of the Ridge Road PTO and author of the letter, said Monday her letter was read by Ridge Road Principal Ann-Marie Bailey prior to being sent home with students.

The Ridge Road Principal was well aware of what was being done. She sanctioned the illegal campaigning. This was a major failing of honesty as a professional in her position.

According to the Leader, Reed said, “She did nothing wrong by sending the letter home. We send out a monthly newsletter anyway. We send out a monthly newsletter anyway,” Reed said. “As a PTO president, it's well within my right. Nothing in our PTO bylaws says we can't endorse candidates. It's just my opinion. I'm not forcing anyone to vote this way.”

Reed’s attitude is a frightening look at the mentoring of leaders within the district. As president, community members might assume her knowledgeable on the subject she is writing. In her position, well advertised on the letter, it is not just her opinion. In the letter she clearly spoke on behalf of the other PTO officers and the beliefs of the entire PTO. Here excuse she was only speaking for herself was disingenuous. This too was standard leadership behavior in the district, she obviously learned well!

As PTO President she believes that she can do anything she wishes as long as it is in the PTO bylaws. She believes as do many educators in the district it is within their rights to break the law. Most frightening is she exhibits the same arrogance that district leadership displays in faulty decision making processes. If she used district resources to perpetuate this crime, it is even more serious.

Susan Pirozzolo, community information specialist, for the district, speaking for superintendent Congdon admitted they were aware of the letter. She said, “the PTO was within its rights to write the letter, but shouldn't have sent it home with the students.” The superintendent’s office again failed miserably to follow up competently on this issue. They failed to point out that the actions of sending the letters out with students through the schools is against the rules, unethical and illegal.

Pirozzolo said district officials have investigated the incident and have taken steps to ensure a similar incident does not occur in the future. She said that neither the school district nor Ridge Road Elementary School are endorsing any of the candidates. The fact is they, through the PTO, are endorsing three of the candidates and telling the community to vote yes on the budget. The empty promise to address the behavior the previous year encouraged the behavior to flourish and grow in 2006.

Pirozzolo was naive in her damage control statement to the public. The damage to the integrity of the budget vote had been done. The process had once again been tainted in the Horseheads School District, by the introduction of the administrations political agendas into the classrooms and throughout the schools. It’s like the lawyer that during a trial


156

presents a statement that is objected to by opposing counsel, and the objection upheld by the judge. The offending lawyer is satisfied, because the seed has been planted in the heads of the jury.

We needed to know who knew and when leadership knew, to characterize this misbehavior accurately. Perhaps stupidity, incompetence, negligence and/or dishonesty played a role, individually or in combination. Whatever the cause, it didn’t speak well for the integrity of the district.

Board member Alan Dedrick’s knowingly false accusation in his letter to the Star-Gazette toward me, Gerald J. Furnkranz regarding the concession stand/announcers tower, saying it cost district taxpayers $14,000.00, when it actually cost $68,000.00. Superintendent Congdon trying to justify Dedricks dishonesty as a mistake characterizing Dedrick’s thought there was state reimbursement when there was not. Still, it would have been taxpayer funds had it been. Dedrick intended it to and falsely did discredit factual information being given to the public.

Mr. Dedrick’s letter was printed twice, and I was not allowed to have my answer to his charges printed by the paper. His false statements certainly had great potential to influence the public in the administrations and boards direction.

If this were the only incident of misinformation being spread to the public by the Horseheads School Board and administration, it would probably be of little consequence. However, this is just one more example, along with the others appearing in this notice of appeal. Documentation of a trend of misinformation over the years exposes the same patterns. Summary Of Irregular Budget Vote Actions 2006

The issue of campaigning for specific school board candidates and budget outcomes

in the Horseheads School District has been exposed as a major movement. First revealed at the Ridge Road School, it has since been revealed it also occurred at the Center Street School. I think we would be foolish to think it didn’t happen at other schools or perhaps all schools in the district.

Not only were letters passed out during school time on school property, but it is said, the students were spoken to verbally on the issues. Our classrooms are being used by the NYSUT (New York State United Teachers) union and various administrators associations promoting agendas that benefit themselves and their professions. They indoctrinate children at a very young age, co-opting them into thinking that benefits the massive and monopolistic education industry. They emphasize the loss of programs, music, art and sports which by state law cannot be touched when budgets are voted down. The actions that took place in the Horseheads District enter the realm of corruption.

In addition to the school forum and students and teacher time, Reeds own words point toward the use of the same resources as the PTO uses for its monthly news letter. She designates this as merely another monthly newsletter, which may be produced on Horseheads School District paper, copy machines and time. Perhaps even district employees are enlisted in this operation. In any case the BEST Ticket campaign was carried out at the expense of the school district.

Seeing candidate Brinthaupt, I congratulated him on a well run campaign. He indicated he knew nothing about it. It is unfortunate that heading the ticket, he was not


157

aware he had been enlisted. Perhaps his twenty years of board experience could have given a warning before this grievous mistake was made. Unfortunately, according to Mr.Brinthaupt, with 20 years of board experience and head of the ticket, was unaware of the campaign effort on his behalf, otherwise he most certainly would have sounded the alarm? I guess his attendance at a forum two weeks before the election where all candidates were not present or invited slipped by the notice of the sage on board policy.

The Horseheads School District statement says, “This was just a communications error?”

Announcement of the BEST Ticket, Brinthaupt, Eusden, Searles Ticket, came out at the school board candidate forum on the evening of May 10, 2006 at the high school library around 8:30 pm. On May 11th, the BEST Ticket appeared in the morning Star-Gazette. WETM TV reported, that very same day a newsletter distributed in Center Street school classrooms dated May 11, 2006. The next day May 12th the letters were distributed at Ridge Road school classrooms.

First characterized as a communications error? What are the odds of such communications coincidentally occurring in this way that is extremely beneficial to the BEST Ticket and the board and administrations agenda to get the budget approved. The short turn around time of all these elements would be practically impossible without contrived coordination. Obviously, the information and plan regarding the BEST Ticket was formulated and distributed well in advance. This action has every ear mark of a very well planned, organized and executed political marketing campaign and not merely a miscommunication as it has so often been characterized!

All three BEST Ticket candidates filled out their financial disclosures falsely. Eusden, Searles and Brithaupt did not declare the money spent on their campaigns by the district PTO’s, as is required by state law. It is doubtful they did not know from the beginning, but say that was true, they knew before they sent in their last disclosure. They failed to declare it on all three, and falsely signed and had the known lie notarized.

Recently remolded in the Star-Gazette article, “as a miscommunication with the district's lawyer”, Pirozzollo said, “The lawyer thought they were asking about mailing letters to students' homes, not sending them home with students and therefore did not think it was inappropriate.”

The district lawyer’s history seems an advocate, supporting and defending district positions, actions, behaviors and all too often misbehaviors rather than advising on what is legal and right. From his apparent attack dog role of being sent to dismiss Sharon Reed the former Horseheads district business manager at 10:00 PM, in the dark of night, after the 2004 budget vote to his convenient interpretation pronouncing legal financing methods of CPP Districts Option 2, later reversed by the state, shoring up superintendents actions unquestioningly seems to be his role.

If this illegal practice had been properly and sincerely addressed in 2005 when it would not have reared its ugly head in 2006. Campaigning in classrooms and on school facilities would not have been breached at such a vastly increased magnitude this year. It seems the district lawyer should have been brought in to address this issue after the incidents of 2005?

Was it approached lightly? Perhaps yes, given the token attention so often given to feign honesty, giving the perception of the superintendent and board had met responsibilities? Then the dishonesty of omission or sloppy perhaps half hearted addressing


158

of the issue, might allow it to occur again, to once more pass a dishonest budget that would otherwise go down. Then, like Pontius Pilot, if the illegal campaigning were discovered, district leadership could wash their hands in the action saying they didn’t know. Such a grand degree of dishonesty or incompetence can be considered nothing less than pure negligence!

I don’t believe it is within the PTO’s rights to campaign for candidates and budget approval? They certainly are an entity in close alliance with Horseheads School District administration and could trade certain favors and benefits as a group and individual parents by conspiring with administrators? We need legal perspective on this that does not come from an advocate whose loyalties lie with district leadership and not the district overall. This requires a legitimate objective legal advisor! I would think it would require multiple legal opinions to verify this! Concerts At Voting Cites

Now let’s look at this action in conjunction with the concerts scheduled at voting sites

for the same evening of the budget vote. Those targeted with this campaigning in the schools and classrooms are mobilized to be at the voting sites the night of the budget vote. Those that might vote the other way are targeted placing every barrier and obstacle in their way to keep them from voting locations.

The less mobile elderly are forced to park farther away, perhaps over more treacherous ground in secondary parking areas. The danger of cars searching for parking places makes it more dangerous for those walking. This is the environment set up for the voting sites by the school district leadership.

The campaigning in district schools along with contrived manipulation of attendance and access at voting sites, give the district leadership great power to manipulate the budget vote and board election. A substantial lack of integrity allows the administration, superintendent and board the ability to set up the budget vote and board election for their own ends. Forgetting the history of dishonesty and cronyism the district has been displaying quite proudly in recent years, this incident alone without the history deserves serious investigation and a budget revote. Education Commissioner Richard P. Mills’ Ludcrous Decision

Education Commissioner Richard P. Mills’ decision dismissing 2006 appeals concerning illegal campaigning in the Horseheads School District was laughable. Rejecting evidence of illegal campaigning because it wouldn’t have changed results is like accepting drunken driving because no one was hurt or shooting at someone because you missed. Mill’s congratulations given district leadership for discipline dispensed was a bigger joke.

Discipline of principals amounted to letters, placed in personnel files, containing a sunset clause. Letters were removed from files on December 31, 2006, barely 6 months after principal’s support of illegal campaigning. Superintendent Congdon’s acclaimed discipline didn’t amount to token actions let alone honest ones!

Let’s take inventory of this fiasco!


159

In May 2005, Superintendent Congdon said, “He addressed the issue with all staff,” when parents concerns of budget campaigning in classrooms and at concerts were brought to the boards attention.

In 2006 similar illegal campaigning exploiting children recurred in massive proportions.

The Joke Gets Bigger

Mills congratulations, to the district for quick disciplinary response, was a farce as was the discipline and his decision. If those principals committed the same infraction in 2007, incidents of illegal campaigning they were supposedly punished for would not be found in their record by the new superintendent. They were removed almost before the ink dried, if ever delivered.

Like Commissioner Mills gratuitous congratulations, Congdon’s meaningless disciplinary actions, reward offending principals encouraging dishonesty. This is the standard of which Horseheads Leadership is so proud they will lie and cheat to maintain. The beat goes on! This kind of cronyism has been shown to be a Congdon credo, to protect his own behind!

Education Commissioner Richard P. Mills’ decision dismissing appeals concerning illegal campaigning in the Horseheads School District exemplifies why New York education is in such a sad state. Dry rot of incompetent corruption stretches top to bottom in the education system. Historically, NYS Education Commissioner’s favor districts misbehaviors, usually followed by a token slap on the wrist. Horseheads District leadership was figuratively given a congratulatory hand shake by Commissioner Mills for its dishonesty.

The Over View

Hard evidence of district leadership lying, cheating and incompetence was

procedurally ignored. Bureaucratic State Education Appeal Procedures seem designed to discourage and dismiss the concerns of the people, allowing dishonest behaviors to flourish.

Actions of the Superintendent: Planned and Dishonest

It certainly appears those principals willingly took the fall for Superintendent

Congdon condoning of the dishonest manipulations of the budget and board votes. He repaid them with a less than token punishment, the letters of discipline being removed in six months so it would be just like they never existed. Those principals could commit the same crimes the next year with little consequence because the history was again erased.

This kind of cronyism is not out of character for Superintendent Congdon. Many incidents of cronyism by Horseheads School District leadership, including the superintendent have been documented.

One might even surmise no such letter was actually entered into their files. With a long history of intensive dishonesty and deception, logically it is a rational conclusion to consider. District leadership arrogant enough to be involved in documented lying and cheating on a regular basis would easily be egotistical enough to attempt such a stunt. Even


160

stealing must be considered with regards to the wasted education opportunities for children and the misused resources of the community and perhaps more caused by the deceptive behavior.

This new information supports the idea that this entire issue of illegal campaigning in the Horseheads School District was a planned and programmed political action of the Horseheads School District Leadership. It did not fall into place like a well oiled machine by accident. It could not have been pulled off so smoothly if it were a mere mistake.

It was probably the only successful results this districts leadership has achieved in the twelve years I have been watching them. It is very sad that they can only make something work when it employs the epitome of dishonesty. Perhaps that is because it is the only area their skills lay.

Classrooms Opened to Indoctrinating Educator’s Political Agendas

This is not just an issue of illegal campaigning in the class rooms for board members

and the budget. This goes to teachers promoting their own political agendas and those of their unions in the classrooms and schools. It goes to administrator associations propagating their political values to students and using the public education system to indoctrinate instead of teaching. It promotes their political subjectivity over critical objectivity. It makes the children robots instead of independent thinkers. It undermines the whole purpose of our public schools.

Ignorant Assumptions

Commissioner Mills ignorantly assumed the Horseheads School District

administration would conduct honest investigations. He failed to or refused to see the leadership only admitted to undeniable incidents that appeared with proof on the television news. Even then Superintendent Congdon’s was a hollow gesture of token discipline of those doing wrong. Unless caught red handed, they were not about to reveal their many other indiscretions.

Concrete evidence of illegal campaigning was pervasive! Much circumstantial evidence of numerous additional incidents was left up to district leadership, already famous for cover-up, to investigate.

Summary

Dishonesty, incompetence or both are apparent top to bottom in the education

leadership involved in this case of illegal campaigning. Token wrist slaps send the message to districts their misbehaviors are condoned! Congratulatory handshakes from the state leadership for misbehaviors encourage the Horseheads School District leadership to be devious and dishonest. This includes all the other districts watching also. It is not surprising the dishonest behaviors occur again and again!

A thorough investigation into that May’s illegal actions in the voting process by district leadership should have occurred! High standards of achievement for students cannot co-exist with low standards of ethics for education leadership.


161

Perhaps it should be a policy candidates should be made aware if they are put on a team ticket and be made responsible to know the actions that would occur on their behalf? I think Mr. Brinthaupt and all the BEST candidates like all candidates are required to declare those expenses incurred on their behalf. Their disclosures should be checked to see if this information from the PTO support was included. While Mr. Brinthaupt may not have been aware before the fact, he was aware after the announcements of the BEST Ticket were made.

**CHAPTER 16. Honesty and Integrity In Education May 16, 2007 Dear Ms. Clack,

My conversations with you some weeks ago inspired me to begin a book on education. Your revealing words began this chapter on Honesty and Integrity. It is still in rough form, but I would appreciate any comments or input you have. Please feel free to comment, mark up or call me with anything you might wish to communicate. Thanks for your help? Gerald Honesty/Integrity In The School District

Carolyn Clack the self supposed sage librarian of the Horseheads School District for

years stood up at the budget meeting to plead for nothing to be cut from the budget. She would champion increased spending particularly for her pet projects, based on her years of experience and vast knowledge of children and the school district. She presented herself as the Phd. expert on education, children and the school district and pontificated as though everyone should see things her way. Ones decision was to be based solely on her credibility, her word, as an educator.

She was very persuasive in her pleading, whiny yet a seemingly authoritative voice. She would tell you why it had to be the way she said. She left no room to question, she presented as she knew her stuff and her judgment was unquestionable. I’m sure many were convinced and took her at her word!

My (March 31, 2007) encounter with the long time Horseheads School District librarian outside the budget workshop proved enlightening. My first question to her was, “That since she was always at budget meeting pushing for something not to be cut or spending not to be restrained, but did she ever talk to her peers about using pharmaceuticals more wisely and frugally since the figures suggested they were spending at double the average rate?”

Defensively she went on the offense telling me what I was doing wrong. “You’re comparing us to the Elmira Schools,” she accused to diffuse the issue. “I don’t think that is a good comparison,” she complained.


162

I corrected her and pointed out my comparison was not to the Elmira school district. The pharmaceuticals expert that came in a few years back was using a national range of averages, not a local one.

She went into another standard educator mode making it personal that she used her healthcare wisely, bringing it down to an attack on her. She deflected the overall misuse of pharmaceuticals which cost the district millions of dollars. It was so similar to the strategy employed by Kathy Keeler, the teacher’s union president when we had this discussion a couple of years back.

It was funny how Clack and her peers would attack you for comparisons to the Elmira school district, which were not made, but would defend the quality of education in the district solely on a comparison to Elmira Schools. Their arguments on the subject were designed to bully and camouflage, not to encourage opened debate to get at the truth.

This method of deflecting most often works. It takes individuals confronting educators awhile to see the strategy they employ, but once familiarize with the facts, and educator’s talking points, it becomes quite evident most of what they say is bluff and bluster.

She went through a list of canned answers of the children bringing sickness into the schools, educators being exposed to them. She actually said kids are sicker, I guess less healthy today. Getting uncomfortably close she feigned a cough on me as if it strengthened her point. Again the standard talking points were presented. One talking point after another spewed, without thought, but with apparent years of indoctrination.

At another point she blamed it on the elderly in the district needing more medication as they got older. Then she blamed it on more young teachers with multiple children using more prescriptions, charging more to the healthcare system. The excuses flew fast and furious, bobbing and weaving, covering everyone as an excuse, making a series of pretexts why the pharmaceuticals costs were so much more.

The science of demographics was ignored. That the district had similar demographics to the community and perhaps the nation was ignored. She kept away from the reality that pharmaceuticals expert revealed. That year the district used twice as much as a percentage of their healthcare plan for pharmaceuticals than the high end of the range of the national average. This was a red flag that certainly needed to be checked, but because of a selfish education industry mentality, never was.

I confronted a few of her excuses then went back into the meeting as it reconvened. I couldn’t take the meeting any longer. It was the usual selling of the budget, going line by line, the yearly dog and pony show selling their increased spending, and little token efforts they had engaged in to reduce costs. Those occasions of jumping over the dollar, millions of dollars, like healthcare pharmaceuticals, to pick up the penny were touted.

I became anxious and left. I really couldn’t stand to listen. I again bumped into Ms. Clack, now bullying Mr. and Mrs. Cass telling them their letters to the editor were wrong. She would not refer to a specific issue or piece of data that was wrong. She just painted with a broad brush, everything was wrong.

This was another behavior I had experienced with the union president and numerous other education leaders, attacking the person and their letter or position in general, never getting to the specifics why they were wrong. Over the years I became familiar with this tactic. This was an attempt to bully, to back the person off without factual defense of a position. Positions for which they never seemed to have factual defense!


163

They would attack focusing on merely saying what you say is wrong. They would not select a specific you could defend. Designed to attack ones confidence and causing people to question themselves, they use insidious methods. Ignorant and thoughtless attacks to weaken a person’s confidence and resolve were employed. Initially it worked until they revealed their bullshitting and bloviating.

I remember thinking back when this happened with the local teacher’s union president. I did question myself. I did not want to be accusing them wrongly. I took much time to go back through my data and information. I sorted through what I had been through so many times before and found again I was right, removing any doubts I had. That was the purpose of their attacks, to bully, induce self-doubt and make you afraid to confront them. They were being dishonest, not telling the truth. Mechanically they continually repeated these education industry talking points and defended them without merit.

They seemed to have no problem doing this. Making points dishonestly to wield their power, backing people down with arrogant dishonesty and untruths. Browbeating with overbearing lies was a standard tool.

Mrs. Cass attempted to point out the information they used in their letters was from information gained at meetings, in minutes and from foils, all from the district. However, she could not get a word in to Ms. Clack.

Clack again insisted their information was not true. Though she failed to argue specific points, she overall accused the Casses of being untruthful. This was so similar to the way most educators argued points, from the union president, to the superintendent, to board presidents who actually put known lies in the newspapers to discredit people they did not want on the board. She went on clacking; clackity, clackity clackity clack, like the ever repeating sound of the train traveling down the same old railroad track.

She continued the attack! “We are not a dishonest school district”, she insisted! “You are tearing us down! You will bring down property values. People won’t want to move here.” She laid all that might go wrong in the community on the shoulders of the Casses and their few letters to the editor.

My argument to such attacks was always to ask, if the district is so good, could one person damage it with a few words. If the truth is damaging the reputation of the district, there is a major problem in the district, which education talking points were designed to hide. She failed to look at the reality that people were moving out of the community because the property taxes were too high. She refused to see education results were not anything to brag about. She was resting on the lazy laurels’ of a school district that was riding on the past.

She went through her self promoting speech of what a hard worker she is and how much extra time she put in on her job. She heaped praise upon herself, which the Cases and I accepted at her word. She left no compliment for herself unsaid.

Though my experience was someone who bragged about themselves and work with such ease was usually the person milking the system and grazing on the pastures of others work. Self-centered, her diatribe sounded like the systematic indoctrination of the education industry, the commercial put out to the public and parroted by so many educators. It was somewhere in the speech with “the children are our future,” and “we could never be paid enough for what we do”.

Focusing on the point, they are not a dishonest school district, I dialed in on last years illegal campaigning. I confronted with the illegal campaigning that took place in the district the previous year during the budget vote, asking, “was that not dishonesty?”


164

I was totally shocked by her response when Ms. Clack stated, she saw nothing

dishonest about the illegal campaigning that took place. That campaigning that passed out the propaganda of certain candidates in classrooms to students to take home to their parents. “She wouldn’t do it herself”, she said covering her ass, but said “she didn’t see anything wrong with others doing it.” She claimed, “She herself never campaigned in the school but she didn’t see anything wrong if others did.”

Again in my experience, this was a guilty person denying actions, but at the same time justifying them because she had engaged in the behaviors. Not only that, but her words showed me honesty and integrity were not barriers to her selfish and greedy actions and goals. When it came to her selfish well being, the truth was not very important. What she got was more important. She didn’t blur the line between honesty and dishonesty, she erased it! I sure looked like she might be devoid of honesty and integrity.

She personified what my long experience told me about the education industry. Their sense of honesty and integrity had become so warped and distorted that the lies they told to protect and expand their education industry propaganda was perfectly fine to them. It served their personal and selfish agendas, so dishonest behavior was all right.

Ms. Clack had placed herself on such a high pedestal she seemed to feel she could do no wrong. Her greed told her no matter what she received she had been short changed, because she was so much more.

As educators their honesty and integrity, or severe lack there of meant nothing, because they were above it. Arrogance and hypocrisy made Ms. Clack the model, the epitome, the personification of the education industry corruption. Perhaps she saw herself on a mountain, A view from an elitist position where exploiting and sacrificing children was okay, even under the banner of “for the children.”

This is the image that years ago had me coining the term, “Elitist intellectual bottom feeders”. Those educators that put themselves on such a pedestal, they required no concrete performance or practice of integrity. While in their arrogance placing themselves very high above everyone else, they exploited children, families and the community for their own purpose - like the con man - a bottom feeder.

Honesty and integrity taught in classes will have no effect in an education institution structure where there is absolutely no sign such things exist. Effective education cannot exist where integrity does not. The highest standards of education cannot exist where there are no standards of integrity. If students are not taught honestly, and their subjects contain no integrity, they are being taught nothing. No, they are being taught less than nothing! They are being taught negatively, ideas contrary to a decent society. They are being indoctrinated, robotized, so they are easily controllable to carry out the will of corrupt societal institutions. Sadly education is becoming one of them

Carolyn Clack is a person that gets up and speaks as though she speaks for the whole of the district. She talks as though her words should be law. Her nose is so high in the air she cannot see the realities of her own world of education. She certainly does not see beyond her nose to the real world where some people are working hard just to survive, not telling people how hard they are working. She blatantly rejects honesty and integrity to cultivate her own greed, her own wants and her own needs.


165

This is just another view of a school district whose past couple of superintendents couldn’t seem to get their stories straight. Perhaps I should say outright, couldn’t seem to tell the truth. The most recent of those superintendent’s right and left hand were known for very interesting ethical philosophies. One administrator’s favorite saying was, “You lie and I’ll swear to it.” The other professed, “Sometimes you have to lie to get what you want.”

A district whose present board president knowingly falsified a letter to the editor, lying to discredit a board candidate! He practically called the candidate a liar, wrongly refuting information that came straight from the superintendent and the district business manager, with information that was a lie. Add to it three board members who signed and had notarized false campaign financial disclosure statements and you have a good insight into the character of the district leadership.

Clack’s view of not seeing the illegal campaigning as dishonest explains many things going on in the district. Carolyn Clack a senior librarian, sage, example, carries much power in the district. She is given great weight and credibility when espousing her views, based on long service in the district. Let’s face it, her desire never to cut but always to add to the budget was a message district leadership loved to hear. However, her word could not be trusted, because she had no understanding of honesty. She could not distinguish between right and wrong, truth and lies.

Her statement that she saw nothing dishonest about the illegal campaigning spoke volumes. Volumes about the integrity she possessed. She stated, she would never campaign in schools and classrooms, but she saw nothing wrong if others did it. First I would question, if she saw nothing dishonest, nothing wrong with it, why wouldn’t she do it?

Perhaps like Superintendent Congdon, principals Bailey and Dalaportis, she could manipulate others to do the dirty work, campaigning on district facilities without getting their hands dirty. That’s what the whole illegal campaigning issue in the Horseheads School district looked like. Underlings manipulated to do the illegal and dishonest dirty work of the district leadership.

This was all in conjunction with massive illegal campaigning in the classrooms and concerts of the school district. Clack’s attitude would explain the illegal campaigning issue as it evolved. Let’s take inventory of this fiasco!

In May 2005, Superintendent Congdon said, “He addressed the issue with all staff,” when parents concerns of budget campaigning in classrooms and at concerts were brought to the boards attention.

In 2006 similar illegal campaigning exploiting children recurred in epidemic proportions.

Mills congratulations, to the district for quick disciplinary response, was a farce as was the discipline and his decision. Supposed disciplinary letters were removed from their files almost before the ink dried, if they were ever delivered. If those principals commit the same infraction in 2007, incidents of illegal campaigning they were supposedly punished for would not be found in their record by the new superintendent.

Like Commissioner Mills gratuitous congratulations, Congdon’s meaningless disciplinary actions, reward offending principals encouraging dishonesty. This is the standard of which Horseheads Leadership is so proud they will lie and cheat to maintain.


166

While the administrator sayings are second hand, they were recounted by credible sources. When the behaviors of those administrators are witnessed, the philosophies expressed are even more believable. Alone, they should never be taken into consideration. Combining all the pieces of the dishonesty puzzle together, they warrant consideration. It is not difficult to believe those people said those things. Those words not only define them and their actions, but accurately define the character and actions of district leadership as a whole.

Hypocrisy, arrogance, lying and cheating seem to be everyday tools of the district leadership.

It is funny how Ms. Clack seems to show herself to be exactly what she most vehemently denied, dishonest. We would be negligent not to ask, how deep do these attitudes go? Well beyond the blurring of the lines between honesty and dishonesty, going so far as to seemingly erase them. How many educators are indoctrinated into this distorted and warped way of thinking? This dishonest way of thinking!

How much power has she been handed? Who has she dragged along, teachers, students, principals and superintendents? What is the extent of the damage done? Are these indoctrinated educators willing to fix the problems or are they going to continue going along with the dishonest Clack philosophies?

A few weeks later I bumped into a former school board member, I had once served

with, only a couple of years removed from the board. I related the incident with Ms. Clack. He didn’t even realize that district leadership had engaged in illegal campaigning the previous year.

When our discussion turned to leadership dishonesty, he defended, “They didn’t steal money like in those other districts.” He went on further to say, “They were just stupid; incompetent.”

I could have said, “When you sell yourself to the community as competent, and you know you are not, isn’t that dishonest?” I could also have said, “When you sell yourself to the community as competent, for a high salary, and you know you are not, isn’t that stealing? At the very least it is fraudulent.”

What I said was, “At first I just thought they didn’t know any better. I thought they just didn’t have the knowledge and skills to make things work. Then I realized they wanted things the way they were. They didn’t want processes and programs to work. It brought in more money for their failures!” They pleaded for more money to fix the problems they had no intention of fixing.

Again I wanted to say, Isn’t that stealing?” But I didn’t. People get turned off by that. What I did say is, “You can’t have good education without integrity!” The good doctor agreed, but still seemed willing to accept the dishonesty of district leadership. Letter to the Local Teacher Union President

Local NYSUT President July 5, 2005 Dear Ms. Keeler,

I wrote to Jim Jacobus asking that the three of us meet to discuss issues as you suggested. I have not yet heard from you. I did receive an anonymous copy of one of my cartoons around the same time and it crossed my mind perhaps that was my answer.


167

Ms. Keeler, I would like you to know where I am coming from and where I am headed. When we talked in the parking lot at Gardner Road School, after the board meeting that recent spring evening, I thought about the things you said.

You walked by me heckling, “Mr. Furnkranz, you’re wrong.” You said that several times till I walked over to you are asked where was I wrong. First you said there were never any co-pays in the district healthcare plan.

I knew I had seen them, but could not recall where. I did state, “minimal co-pays”. My talk with you jogged my memory. I recalled previous superintendent Keith Reester was putting them in the administrator contracts to pave the way for negotiating them into the teachers contracts. So, in reality, I wasn’t wrong about that issue. Perhaps just not as clear as I might have been. I wasn’t clear in my own head but knew I had seen them. I guess he dropped them completely when the community was sold out again in your last contract.

Then you chastised me for using the word abuse with regard to district educator’s use of their healthcare privileges. You told me you didn’t abuse yours and other educators did not abuse theirs. It was more your word than fact, but initially I was willing to take you at your word.

I will tell you, our discussion gave me pause to send out my April Integrity Quest, because you did place some doubt in my mind. I didn’t sleep that night, running my thoughts over again.

Also, your admission much of what I say, I have some good points, was similar to what Mr. Jacobus had said to me another time. It was nice and even seductive to hear some educators admit that. It hurt to hear how disappointed you were when something I said was “wrong or incorrect”. It concerned me and made me hesitate to distribute my latest newsletter. I thought there might be room for discussion that would be productive to the district and didn’t want to risk that.

However, the ideas in the newsletter had been ones I formed over time. I did have information substantiating most of it. It had to be timely with the budget vote coming up, so I went ahead. I would publicly retract if I found out I was wrong.

Your approach to heckle me as you walked by in the parking lot grabbed my notice. I became wary recalling how you did not let me get a word in when I tried to discuss issues with you and then you gloated and demeaned when I admitted, perhaps I had learned something in our discussion. As you drove away, you could not leave well enough alone.

After I admitted to having learned something, you said to me in a very sarcastic manner, as you drove away, “I guess I did some teaching tonight.”

Yes, you certainly did! You have no idea how similar those behaviors I described are to other educators and supporters of their behaviors in the district that I have encountered. Almost every time I have attempted to discuss issues of education and the behavior of educators as a whole I encounter intimidating, demeaning and superior attitudes. It is not a discussion of facts but an oration of the education industry position dogma. I can outline the approach and give you specific examples, including the usual disparaging comments as they drove or walked away.

Still, I was somewhat in doubt if I should go ahead. I did strongly want my position to be in the right. I was manipulated by your approach of highlighting my errors, instead of the good points of which you made absolutely no other mention. An excellent tactic to attack someone’s self-esteem!

I did recall the place I had seen co-pays. They had existed! So, that was really not an


168

error, but an issue of which you might not have been aware? At that time there were minimal co-pays in contracts!

Probably a week later I stumbled across the information that the district had a pharmaceuticals management consultant come in early 2004. He was amazed to find the district use of pharmaceuticals was 52% of the total district healthcare expenditures. The range of the national average was 18% to 26%.

This has the potential for $2.7 to $3.5 million in saving on this year’s budget. It held the potential for millions of dollars in saving on last year’s budget and probably many more millions in saving over the last decade or more. If this isn’t abuse of district healthcare privileges, there is no such thing as abuse in this world. Ms. Keeler, you weren’t very forthright with me on this issue!

This is an area of the budget that superintendent Congdon said there was no leeway for saving except through contract negotiations. His denial was buttressed by Al Dedrick, the chair of the district finance committee and re-enforced by you that there was no abuse of healthcare privileges in the district. These are saving that could be realized merely by educator’s common sense use of their healthcare privileges.

This $2.7 to $3.5 million waste of the community’s money was only in half the healthcare budget, the pharmaceuticals portion or 9% of the total budget. Remember 2003-4 Horseheads District spent sixteen and a quarter percent (16.25%) of the budget on healthcare when the state average was nine percent (9%). Only two districts in the state spent a larger percent of budget for healthcare.

This year when most districts were working diligently on reducing healthcare costs, the costs in our district increased $1.8 million to over 18% of the budget. Such massive waste becomes habit and institutionalized. It would be negligent to assume there is not similar waste in the physician’s side of the healthcare costs such that there could be similar millions of dollars in savings in that portion of the healthcare budget also. We are talking potential savings of $5.4 to $7 million in healthcare that is 18% of the total budget.

This does not include potential savings to the district by implementing co-pays, deductibles and caps. They should be implemented even with the realization of the following savings. Co-pays, deductibles and caps are governors that limit the abusive waste and insure it will never again get this far out of hand. Educators should not be rewarded for selfishly implementing such wasteful practices.

So, what about the remaining eighty percent (80%) of the budget? Again I think we would be negligent to assume these wasteful attitudes and practices have not seeped into all aspects of the budget and the school district. I have heard stories of cleaning products being thrown away at the end of the year. Like all government models, the budget must be spent or the department will not receive the same money plus five percent (5%) the next year. This approach is outrageous enough in larger government and educational institutions. However, in our local school district where the money comes directly out of the community’s pocket, such abuse is simply unacceptable.

If I ever hear another educator in the Horseheads school district whine that they had to spend their own money on supplies for the classroom, I think I will puke. There is no doubt in my mind, if that does ever happen, it is because there is so much abuse of supplies that waste is the reason they are not available.

This level of ineptitude does not just follow the finances. Such attitudes of entitlement and the ensuing weaknesses created in the system are not only on the money side.


169

Leadership perpetuates this carelessness and mediocre work ethic throughout the organization. It creeps into the approach to educating the children.

A major goal of the education industry is to employ more teachers by having fewer kids in class. The ruse is so they can give more attention to the children. Children are supposed to emerge from those classes better educated. Such has not been the case over the years.

We have seen class size getting smaller and public education meeting the children’s needs less and less. The mediocre approach has spread from education finances to the classroom. Smaller classes, it appears, means less effort rather than more education.

Educators will cast blame on state mandates. Education union and association lobbies are the power dictating what government does in public education. Such mandates would not happen without the support of the education industry. State mandates provide excuses for a public education machine unable to achieve results.

Educators in the Horseheads School District are using their union the New York State United Teachers to use and abuse the community for purely selfish purposes. You have let your lust for power and money selfishly waste vast amounts of community resources without remorse or regret. No doubt, education leadership is guilty of the same conduct. I suggest that is when you see me as right, when I point out administration abuse. You see me as wrong when I point out your behavior is no different.

Ms. Keeler, this is what I have come away with from my encounter with you. I would really like to sit down and discuss issues to test my impressions. I have a strong sense you will not want to do that. Education leaders tend to gravitate toward encounters where they can use methods of intimidation, demeaning and superiority to manipulate those that disagree, then run away before they have to hear the truth!

Sincerely,

Gerald J. Furnkranz CHAPTER 17. A CUTTING EDGE ATHLETIC CODE OF CONDUCT:

A MODEL FOR THE STATE?

It was late March 2006 when a group of parents showed up at school board meetings asking about school policies regarding athletics and coaches. I had not seen these people at meetings before. They came as a group and appeared somewhat organized. When members of the group spoke, they were clear and precise. This was the first time this group and I had crossed paths. I was impressed.

In their address to the board, they explained they had already been to the district athletic director and the superintendent Congdon who said he would get back to them in two weeks and did not.

In reality their quest had begun much earlier in 2006, perhaps even in late 2005. Members of this group of parents expressed they felt they were getting the bum’s rush by the superintendent.


170

Hearing their story, other regular attendees of the board meetings were not surprised. The process of listening but ignoring was standard operating procedure for the administration and the board. If the concerned community member was persistent, a pattern of promises and stalling was executed with the intention of frustrating them till they gave up. To get any honest addressing of a situation was practically impossible, especially if the coach being challenged was a crony of the superintendent, which was true in this case.

In coming months I was at several meetings this group of eight to ten parents attended. They were concerned about the behavior of a coach who was poking his players in the chest, kicking and throwing chairs and getting in their faces, screaming like a marine drill sergeant. They charged he swore at, threatened and belittled his players. The coach warned them not to tell their parents.

I had heard from a parent his son did not go out for High School Basketball because this coach visited his eighth grade practice, swearing and carrying on. This young man did not want to be led by such a coach. The parent related the coach said to the students, Excuses are like assholes, everybody has one.

It gives me the impression of an insecure man, swaggering before these thirteen and fourteen year olds, beating his chest because of his insecurities. Mandy Moore addresses a character in her new movie with a response and analysis to such behavior. She said to the other leading character, “What you say sounds so stupid, it only makes you appear small and weak.”

The stalling process continued. I really don’t know the exact time line, only the mile stones I describe and will only speak in generalities, as to where this headed.

This group of parents continued dealing with the district and was handed off to the district legal counsel. I would better describe him as the district attack dog or strong arm. This signaled them to consult with their own lawyer.

Those parents got the feeling they were being lead a merry chase. They sensed the delaying, detaining, deflecting, diffracting and derailing tactics that were being used on them to avoid addressing the real issues and problems. The stalling became obvious to them. They challenged the district leadership at every obstacle that was thrown at them.

To us regular board watchers their experience was the normal approach of district leadership (board, superintendent, administration) to concerns from the community. We had experienced it many times. At this point we shared our observations with them, but it was important they experience the behaviors of the board and superintendent for themselves.

Eventually the stalling pushed this informal group addressing their concern to develop into a formal group known as “Parents for Players”. Word got out and discussion began in the community. Many sports enthusiasts attacked these parents on the grounds sports in the district would be hurt by their questioning. They were accused of damaging the sports program, much the same way I was told I was destroying the school district by questioning the way I did when I was on the board.

How is it possible a single person, or one small group could destroy a superior school district or a sports program as wonderful as that advertised in the Horseheads District? It made one question even more, was the quality of the district a fact or merely a façade?

Defensiveness arose! The purity of coaches was being questioned and the administration, board, sports groupies and beneficiaries did not like it. The Parents for Players were attacked in letters-to-the-editor and other newspaper columns. The discussion grew, and these parent’s actions drew needed attention to the situation.


171

Later we would hear from some of those parents (members of parents for players) at meetings they were treated very shabbily, ridiculed and harassed by members of the community for addressing a coach’s conduct.

However attention was forced on the issue as it was laid in front of the entire community. The parents were persistent and the administration and board could no longer ignore them. The next stalling step of leadership was to declare the present district policy insufficient. A committee would be formed to study it and develop a new policy.

This again was a somewhat consistent practice. The administration and board often did not follow policy. When caught they would say the present policy was not sufficient. The dog and pony show would be hauled out and new policies they had no intention of following would be developed.

When the committee first met, Ray and Lori Cass wanted to attend the meeting. They were told they could not. It was a closed meeting. Only those invited to be on the committee could attend. Even at one meeting when a majority of board members were there. Such attendance by board members made it legally an open meeting, opened to the public, but still it was not.

It was late fall (November) 2006 when I heard about the community committee meeting. Much later word that a consultant was being brought in to facilitate the group was given to the public, just as results were beginning to come out. Apparently no one in the district could do that job, and that was probably true. Rumor had it former superintendent Bill Congdon had offered his services, so were the services of another crony Alice Learn, while the coach at the center of this whole controversy was another crony. The superintendent that tried to avoid the situation altogether now seemed to be stacking the deck. Neither of these administrators could facilitate their way out of a wet paper bag.

Then it came out in the paper, the district leadership hailed themselves as developing a cutting edge athletic code of conduct. The newspapers piled on the districts own self-promotion, saluting their development of a model code of conduct that could be the standard for the state.

As it developed it was acclaimed more and more as a great accomplishment by the district and local paper. The district was using it to rack up recognition and accolades. They said it was innovative, ground breaking and it would become the yardstick for the state. May 6, 2007 Star-Gazette Article by Roger Neumann (Summary) As was reported in the May 6, 2007 Star-Gazette by Roger Neumann, He headlined, “District targets sports conduct.” “The Horseheads Central School District is developing a "cutting edge" code of conduct for student-athletes, coaches and parents/spectators that could become a model for districts all over New York State. Committees have been meeting since November to draw up guidelines that will apply to all three of those groups at all levels of all school sports.” The article continued, Parent’s complaints about what they saw as problems with a varsity coach spurred the process toward a comprehensive code of conduct really started in late 2005. John Underwood, a nationally known consultant who has worked with the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, has helped the Horseheads district with the project.


172

"This is cutting edge for them to take this on," Underwood said. He continued "some great stuff" has resulted from the months of meetings. "Enough has come out of this to make it a model process for a school district to take a look at what's good, what's bad, what's otherwise in the athletic program," he said. "A lot of it will be used as an example for teaching the rest of the state." The process toward a comprehensive code of conduct really started in late 2005, when some parents complained about what they saw as problems with a varsity coach. The following spring, a group called Parents for Players took their grievances to the school board. "That's what started the whole thing, but that's not what the issue is about. It's a bullying situation," said parent Anna Zelko of Horseheads, referring to the initial problems with the coach. A member of the parents' committee for the code of conduct study and an organizer of Parents for Players, Zelko has been a prime mover in the effort to bring about change in Horseheads athletics. "I pursued it, I pushed it, I kept telling board members this is wrong, this is wrong. I finally got a board member to put it on the agenda," said Zelko, who is one of 11 candidates running for five seats on the board in the May 15 election. While Horseheads parents were applying pressure to the board, complaints also were coming from outside the district. "We were receiving correspondence from other districts concerning our spectators," said Al Dedrick, Horseheads school board president. "There was a lot of finger pointing." No one will discuss specifics of those problems now. Dedrick said only: "There have been occasions at sporting events when we have had trouble accepting the conduct of our players and our guests, and we're concerned about it." Said Underwood: "It tore apart the town for a short time." When Underwood first came to Horseheads, he found, not surprisingly, that there was poor communication -- between parents and coaches, coaches and athletes, and athletes and parents. "The No. 1 issue is usually communication," he said. Zelko agrees with that. But she said there's more to it. She said athletes are routinely "bullied" by coaches who threaten retribution if they tell their parents, or if their parents complain to school officials or the board. "It's head games," Zelko said. "It's power and control, and that's why I call it bullying. "I believe we're teaching our kids that you have to accept that, and you don't. No child should have to go under any humiliating bullying or harassing from their teachers. "It's not something new, but I believe we've got to put a stop to it." In March 2006, the school board directed the administration to look into the matter. "What set it in motion for us was the board of education saying that the student-athletes have this code of conduct, the parents have the STAC (Southern Tier Athletic Conference) agreement, the coaches have the national coaches' federation, the state athletic association plus the teachers' contract," said Director of Athletics Mike Johnston.


173

"What our board wanted to do was come up with a comprehensive policy to bring each of these three entities together." A 10-page "participation contract," developed in the early 1990s and revised several times since then, guides all Horseheads student-athletes. Each athlete and a parent must sign the contract and the conference agreement. Early on, Dedrick said, "There was so much of a blame game being played that it was difficult to get this thing off the ground." Underwood said he found that some people in the community were "paranoid" about the situation. Getting past the 'blame game' to a solution Marino inherited the problems when he took over as superintendent last December. When he digested what had already taken place, he suggested a survey be developed and provided to the committees of athletes, coaches and parents. "It's all based on what people's experiences with the athletic program have been over time," he said. According to the survey summary prepared last week, 1,850 copies of the survey were sent out last month, and 339 -- or 18 percent -- were completed and returned. To the basic question of whether the district should have a comprehensive code of conduct, responses were overwhelmingly favorable -- 84 percent to 93 percent of each group saying there should be such a code for athletes, coaches and parents -- with one exception. Only 49 percent of coaches said there should be a code for coaches, and 69 percent of them said there should be one for parents. District spokeswoman Susan Pirozzolo said coaches were invited to explain their votes anonymously. "The coaches said they answered 'no' because they felt they already had specific guidelines to follow regarding responsibilities and conduct -- district and section policies, as well as state and national codes of ethics for coaches," she said. Among other results from the multiple-choice survey: •Asked where coaches can improve or grow, the top answer from athletes was "willingly accept criticism and feedback"; from coaches, "avoid using profanity"; and from parents, "careful to not create a superstar over team." •To the question of where parents can improve or grow, the top answer from athletes and parents was "keep critical opinions of team/individual members private"; from coaches, "(be) realistic about their child's abilities." Marino said everyone who received a copy of the survey, whether or not it was returned, will get a summary of the findings.


174

Underwood said his own findings are that parents and coaches have "moved forward" and that athletes as a group don't seem to share all the parents' concerns about coaches. "The huge majority of kids say the coaches are supportive, they're caring, they're knowledgeable, they follow the code of conduct, and on and on and on," he said. Code of conduct comes with a price tag The code of conduct project, now five months old, will cost the district several thousand dollars. Marino said Underwood is charging "a little less" than $1,000 a day for each day he's here, including lodging and mileage. And Underwood said he's made eight trips to Horseheads and was to be here for the meetings last week and on Monday. "Hopefully, in a couple of years everybody can look back and say it was a worthwhile process," said Dedrick, the school board president. Underwood said he's confident that will be the case. "I've seen such a positive turnaround from the time I started going there to now that I really think they've turned the corner," he said. "We're in a way better place than we were when we started. As Reported in the Star-Gazette May 8, 2007 As reported in the Star-Gazette May 8, 2007 survey results show that coaches, athletes and parents in the Horseheads Central School District all see room for improvement in behavior on and off the field, but some residents question the need for a new athletic code of conduct. The survey was prompted by parent complaints about the behavior of a varsity coach. Committees have been meeting since November to draw up guidelines that would affect players, coaches and parents at all levels of all school sports. Among the responses, an overwhelming majority of parents and athletes felt that the district should have or establish a comprehensive code or conduct for all three parties, but only 49 percent of coaches felt that they should be subjected to any new guidelines. Anna Zelko, a school board candidate and one of the parents who initiated the original complaint, said the problem isn't the lack of a comprehensive code of conduct. The problem is the existing code isn't uniformly imposed, with students facing a different standard than coaches, Zelko said. "The existing code isn't being enforced. We can write any code we want, but it's got to be implemented," she said.

Jan Smith, Parents for Players, Elmira wrote “Hold adults accountable for behavior,” in her December 29, 2006 letter to the editor. She used the example of what took place at Notre Dame High School.


175

She wrote, “Sister Mary Walter Hickey made a wise choice to uphold the Notre Dame code of conduct, though it meant a tough personnel action with a long-time educator and coach. The decision sends a clear message: proper behavior by youngsters in a school setting requires adults to also exhibit proper behavior. As for the educator/coach, his admission of error, apology and acceptance of consequences is refreshing. Mike D'Aloisio rose above ego and distress to an embarrassing situation to affirm that correct conduct must be applicable to everyone. The alternative approach of addressing poor conduct by an educator was expressed in a recent FanFare piece written by George Farr. While affirming there was a locker room incident with the basketball coach and a player this spring in the Horseheads school district, Farr implied it was perfectly reasonable that no sanctions were imposed on the educator because at least one "hard-nosed" basketball player didn't think the incident was a big deal. This perspective, seemingly shared by the Horseheads district administration, misses the point. Quality education includes quality behavior by educators with students, at all times.”

At face value there is much to be said for Jann Smith’s logic. Her argument becomes even more persuasive when looked into more deeply. Mr. D'Aloisio reacted to a smart ass kid, by poking him in the chest to make a point, a possible point of impact for a student needing a lesson. Yes, a mistake in today’s politically correct environment, but he recognized it and accepted the penalty though overly harsh for the incident in question.

The Horseheads coach allegedly went on a tirade or several tirades, poking athletes in the chest, threatening, swearing, getting in their faces, yelling and kicking and throwing chairs. This is said to be a rule rather than and exception for this coach. If this coach faced any action it would be minimal and token. The difference between the two actions and resolutions are even greater than explained by Jann Smith. There seems to be a lack of commonsense and irrationality in both cases. Over compensating by the good Sister and completely avoiding accountability by the Horseheads district leadership. When I heard this new policy cost the district almost $10,000.00, I cringed. I thought, “What a waste of money!” By long time board member Brinthaupt’s own words when discussing five thousand dollars as “pocket change” I knew eight years later $10,000.00, double the amount would be seen the same way. $10,000.00 was not too much for them to spend for a diversionary tactic. It too was merely pocket change.

I was negative about this waste of time, energy, resources and money. I saw no good coming from it. I had seen similar delaying actions from the board and administration numerous times. It seemed just another stall to derail the quest for fairness to the Parents for Players.

When I attended the meeting where Mr. Underwood, the consultant facilitator, explained the code, I was awe struck. If carried out seriously, this code could bring honesty and integrity to the school board and administration, or at the very least familiarize them with such terminology of ethics, of which they appeared so unfamiliar. This was an event that was easily worth ten thousand dollars.


176

To make this work, as Mr. Underwood vehemently pointed out, “the school board and administration must possess and exemplify the essential elements of character building and ethics.”

I would call those essential elements integrity. This includes in Mr. Underwood’s documents, elements embodied in the concept of sportsmanship along with six core principles; trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship. The highest potential of sport, and I would say of men, women and society in general reflects these six pillars.

School district leadership (Board, superintendent and administration) had never shown any affinity for integrity. They leaned particularly toward arrogance and hypocrisy which in themselves signal dishonesty. Their stalling tactics characterized their usual behavior. How could this Athletic Code of Conduct approach anywhere near its potential in such an environment hostile to integrity?

Mr. Underwood, the facilitator of this project asked sincerely at his presentation, “What coach wouldn’t sign this document?”

The answer came quickly and the hypocrisy of the cutting edge state model athletic code of conduct was revealed. According to WETM July 12, 2007 Rachel Rhodes Coaches are against the athletic code of conduct because it “Unfairly changes their coaching style and increases accountability.” The board voted 5 to 4 to adopt the code, leaving out the coaches.

An Endangered Athletic Code Of Conduct

Mr. Dedrick and the board showed why the Athletic Code of Conduct was facing an

uphill battle in the Horseheads School District. At that very meeting Board President Dedrick espoused several lies, once again

showing his and the school boards nature. Two lies regarding the school board election miscount, highlighted by the Star-Gazette disavowing information given to them by the district. This also included a false statement made by the board president after I had said we owe thanks to the “Parents for Players” for persisting in the issue of a sports code of conduct, because this document facilitated by John Underwood could be the mechanism to bring integrity to the school board and district leadership.

Mr. Dedrick promoted that Mr. Underwood was already in the district working on this before parents for players addressed the situation. This was a knowingly false statement to show a proactive face when district leadership was clearly stalling and reacted only when their hand was forced. Those parents were addressing the superintendent for incidents of coaching misconduct very early in 2006. I was able to trace the trail back directly to late March 2006 in a referenced address to the superintendent.

Those parents indicated they had taken actions with the athletic director which takes

it back even earlier in the year. They were intentionally stalled and ignored right down the line. They were stalled and then ignored by then Superintendent Congdon. Then they went to the board where they were again stalled and ignored the board hoping it would discourage them. As was reported in the May 6, 2007 Star-Gazette By Roger Neumann the parents began airing their concerns in late 2005.

In the board and superintendent’s attempt to stall, ignore, delay, detain and derail the efforts of these parents, eventually evolving, Parents for Players was formed to address this


177

blocking tactic of the leadership to avoid action and bury the coaches misconduct. If not for these parents, this code of conduct would never have been compiled and the district would have once more swept a matter of misconduct under the rug.

Board And Administration Must Practice/Exemplify Integrity

Yet, Mr. Dedrick, the board and the district administration show why there is still a long ways to go to make this document work. To feed egos and satisfy arrogance, Mr. Dedrick was again rewriting history to take credit for something positive that might finally come under this leadership. However, these actions may just be a sign all this work will go for naught.

As Mr. Underwood emphasized, “To make this work, the school board and administration must possess and exemplify the essential elements of character building and ethics.”

All of those elements that would fall under the tent of integrity do not fall I the purview of this or most other school boards. Mr. Underwood’s documents, elements embodied in the concept of sportsmanship along with six core principles; trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship then are outside the boards reach. These elements (six pillars ) are the highest potential of sport, and of society in general, but unknown to many school boards.

Sadly, this board and administration not only do not possess these core principles, these essential elements of integrity. They are so far from their vision they are practically unknown. Even if some board members were familiar with such values, in the past they have lacked the courage for their values, and are of no use in perpetuating them.

Board member Searles gave an insightful talk on the commonsense of such ethical principles. He explained how character education is mandated by the state, and the athletic code of conduct runs parallel to those mandates. He showed the simplicity of the approach, but failed to reveal the main barriers, the board he sits on and the administration that board oversees are devoid of ethics.

Character Education; An Unfunded, Unethical Mandate

Filling these mandates costs us extra in lost time and money. Such mandates will never be effective, because character cannot be taught where it is not practiced and exemplified. If the environment practices and exemplifies good character, it will not be necessary for special programs, classes and mandates to teach it. So, character education is mandated in our public schools because the example of good character is missing and only poor character will be taught by the prevailing example.

So, instead of expecting greater integrity in public education, our politicians, who display poor character regularly, decree that character education be implemented in public schools. This is their way of dealing with the problem without dealing with it and pumping more money foolishly into the education industry.

Just the fact that character education is a separate and distinct subject dooms it to failure. Good character is common sense, as Mr. Searles pointed out. That common sense has been eliminated from the education system. Students have been educated out of it and


178

then grow into adults lacking it. Many of those adults are now parents, teachers and education leaders educated out of their common sense and ethics.

Athletic Code Dependent On Leadership Example As Mr. Underwood pointed out, the success of the athletic code of conduct is

dependent on the leadership example of those principles by district leadership. Failure is assured if leadership does not put into practice those principles. They cannot decree behavior saying do as I say, not as I do. Their practicing of hypocrisy has set us up to be in this situation today where a code of conduct is necessary.

Two lies and one misrepresentation practiced by the board in a span of hours. Two at that last meeting and one exposed in the June 5, 2007 Star-Gazette as a correction shows clearly this is not a leadership capable of providing the necessary leadership and example for the six pillars of character as accepted leadership behavior now stands.

Many in leadership will conveniently say, Mr. Dedrick is leaving, he is at fault and the problem will be gone with him. They will make him the scapegoat. That is a very weak and dishonest view.

While he has been a major influence for improper behavior, he is only a symptom, not the cause. While Mr. Dedrick has carried the banner for many years, the district was sliding toward dishonesty long before he got here. He has carried on the tradition, but it is a tradition that is systemic. It is inherent in the mechanisms and traditions of the district.

Remember, superintendents, administrators, educators and most board members sat silent when these kinds of misrepresentations and lies were presented before the board. This encouraged and supported dishonesty. Dedrick’s replacement supported this behavior whole heartedly.

The athletic code of conduct was a banner for the district to fly when all they saw were accolades. It received less support from leadership when they realized it set them up for accountability. This appeared especially true when that accountability was in the realm of integrity. You could see them drop it like a hot potato. You could feel this banner previously held high and deflated and drop to the dirt, being trampled on by the once celebratory mob. Accountability followed with integrity completely changed the tone, as with most educational programs. Coaches will sign a page of the revised code of conduct. A page filled with glittering generalities, and pie in the sky extreme positive values which no one could be expected to attain. Setting standards which no one could be expected to achieve, dissolves accountability (show over substance). All will fail, so there is nothing wrong with any failure. Nebulous standards for the most part mean nothing. No behavior for which a coach could be called to task will be articulated. This in general is how the entire education industry has manipulated and exiled accountability.

Epilogue

When I gave a copy of this chapter to Anna Zelko, she commented that it was a good

summary of what happened. She also commented the new coaches part of the new code of conduct was no different than what was their before this whole process began.


179

I was watching the televised high school football game between Horseheads and Corning East in October 2007. With the score 21 to 19 in Corning’s favor, the Trojans deep in their own territory, the quarterback was kneeling to run out the clock.

A Horseheads player rushed in spite of this. I guess I could see his taking that chance, in hopes he might get through in time and jar the ball loose. Perhaps a breech of protocol, I could see his attempt at the chance to win.

However, when he couldn’t reach the quarterback in time, he ripped off his helmet and stomped all over the field in a tirade. This big redheaded kid looked like a big spoiled child, making a scene like he had so often seen the pros behave. Much the way coaches behaved arguing against the code of conduct to maintain the uncontrollable emotion as part of the game.

You can point to the positive lessons of sports all you want, but they are not automatic. Unless they are taught specifically and with intention and example, they will not be taught properly or learned.

It is often forgotten, negative lessons can be learned from sports also. Merely from negligence the negative can be exemplified. If those teaching are sloppy, lazy and/or selfish in their intentions, most likely the negative lessons will be taught and learned.

Eventually the coach made it onto the field and the kid stopped. He should have been benched for the next game because of the childish show. I doubt that he was. So much for the code of conduct!

CHAPTER 18. SCIENTIFIC SCAMMERS AND ACCESSORIES TO THE DISHONESTY

January 20, 2007

It was about twelve years ago when Dr. Robert Reidy Superintendent was selling intensive (block) scheduling to the Horseheads School District. Having attended most, if not all public meetings on the subject, I couldn’t help but notice the absence of significant data. Supposed years of study lauded by the district caused me to question the appearance of seemingly sparse and selective data.

They showed the second year of data from the program in existence at the participating school for two years, but not the first year. Still, it had not been implemented long enough to make the data significant. Yet showing one year and not the other looked a bit deceptive.

I questioned Dr. Reidy about this. He gave me a research paper to quell my concerns. After reading the paper, my concerns were even greater. I went to him and remarked, “This research paper seems extremely bias to me.” I pointed out it seemed more like a marketing proposal for the program, rather than research about it.

Dr. Reidy’s answer hit me hard. Obviously, it sticks in my head till this day. He defended, “You have to expect researchers to have their own agenda.”

I replied, “I thought research was a search for the truth.” I have become much more involved in our educational processes since those days. I

have seen numerous programs sold to the communities as valid, backed by bias data if any,


180

more resembling marketing campaigns than scientific research. First intensive (block) scheduling, then intermediate schools and Everyday Math followed. While I have been accused of saying the same old thing, I have pointed out new actions that show educators following the same old trends, falling into the same old rut, installing programs based on feelings and preferences rather than effectiveness and efficiency.

I have pointed out how these failures bring more money and power to the education industry. Consistent failure is of little concern to them. It is even a viable tool. As they fail, they cry they need more money in order to succeed. The additional funds never bring success. Half hearted effort put forth enforced by the policy of implementation is completion insures failure. So they cry for more money. Sadly, they get it!

So, why bring this up again? Because the academic world, the well spring of research, sees research as just another marketing tool for them to promote their agendas! The scientific method is no longer a search for the truth, but the development of a marketing campaign, and collection of data that will appear to prove their agenda.

So what, you say? This has a far greater affect than merely the failing of our local public school education. It is not just a school district or county issue. It is a state, federal even global concern. These bias, propagandized agendas might well be used to develop public policy nationally, even world wide. Drug Approval

My brother works for the Food and Drug Administration. He told me a drug needs to show only minimal improvement over the placebo to gain acceptance of the FDA. He also expressed concern with the sloppiness with which the experimental processes are carried out by companies. Minimal positive affect that is gained by sloppy scientific research doesn’t give me a good feeling about the job that is being done.

I’ve heard on many news reports, often the negative effects of the drugs aren’t even monitored during initial rounds of experimentation. They focus on the use they have in mind for the drug and give minimal consideration to the detrimental side effects.

One must question, is drug research a search for the truth, or a development of a marketing campaign to make money and cultivate power? Now, I’m no expert on these scientific issues. In fact, the more I try to inform myself on these issues, the more confused I get as logic and facts are lost in the propaganda of the personal agendas of members of the scientific community. Global Warming

Global Warming is another such issue. All scientists agree it exists. The argument is, does the technical advancement of man on earth affect it to any significant degree. Some scientists say yes, others say no. Those that say yes say there are more of them than those that say no. Next it must be honestly asked is it detrimental or beneficial.

Now the United Nations panel report says it is very likely, meaning a greater than 90% chance global warming is cause by man’s burning of fossil fuels. Purveyors of global warming use words like “little doubt” their consensus is accurate and nearly impossible to argue against it. Is this like the weather man predicts a 90% chance of rain today and we


181

never see a drop? Or the predictions we’d see more and larger hurricanes this year and we barely saw any of consequence.

Author Michael Crichton has pointed out on numerous occasion’s serious fallacies in research used by the UN panel to draw their conclusions that they accepted without question. An erroneous graph used by the UN and since corrected suggests that the global temperatures today are very far from the warmest they have been in the last thousand years. (Numerous experts in global climate, weather and statistics have appeared on CSPAN debunking Gore’s assertions point by point.)

He points out an highly accepted British scientific researcher on Global Warming refuses to share his data, because he says all the people that are asking for it want to do is show where it is wrong. Well Yeah! If data cannot stand scrutiny of others in the field, it is most likely faulty data.

The weather channels scientific weather expert Heidi Cullen, wants meteorologists appearing on television to be decertified (fired) if they don’t agree with her global warming mantra! This sounds like the religious and scientific zealots of the Middle Ages that persecuted Copernicus and Galileo for ideas about the solar system that were far more correct than their own.

Al Gore received an Academy award for his film an “Inconvenient Truth”. An award that possibly was directed to him before the film “Inconvenient Truth” was completed or perhaps even started. He goes around the country putting on his show, but will not go on stage with someone knowledgeable with opposing views. Now Mr. Gore says it lacks balance when the other side is heard. He sees fairness as only his story being told. Perhaps his film should be called, “The Truth is Inconvenient”.

Watching C-SPAN, I was reminded of Al Gore receiving money in a Buddhist Temple, excusing himself because there was no controlling legal authority. Now he pushes all logic aside, bypassing the scientific method for a convenient consensus, essentially declaring there is no controlling scientific authority.

Fawning Senator Feinstein hailed global warming huckster, evangelist and puppet Al Gore as a prophet. Self-adoration filled Gore as Oprah declared him Noah. Ostentatious compliments generate no humility; acknowledgement Gore sees himself similarly. Senate leader Harry Reed rolled in Gore’s glow, like a beagle in a rotted carcass, lauding Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar and Emmy.

Time magazine seems to have moved Gore from deity to a mere mortal war hero. With their cover of the men at Iwojima, raising a tree, showing the raising of the flag of warning or global warming, who else could it be referring to other than the prophet, the Noah, the savior, winner of the Emmy, Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize, now compared to a war hero. Yes, Al Gore is being made into an epic hero, like Hercules, El Cid or Beowolf. Part god, part man, he alone is saving the world. Experts on global climate, weather and statistics have been everywhere, including on C-SPAN debunking Gore’s assertions. Senator Inhofe exposed major errors in Gore’s allegations, highlighted by eleven errors in Gore’s movie required exposed if shown in United Kingdom schools. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California punched holes is Gore’s ascertains, merely asking for debate on the subject. Gore called him a Stalinist. Who is the Stalinist, the person asking for debate of the person stif Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, seems more aptly named, “The Truth Is Inconvenient”. His ice shelf breaking away


182

was depicted with Styrofoam, computer generated footage from the movie, “The Day

After Tomorrow”. Gore, a self-congratulated savior, avoids debating dissenting experts! Why? Follow the money! Gore’s face emanated self-satisfaction as he discussed carbon

credits which clear his conscience and aid his investments. Squinting, weasel like he ensnares his prey, supporting his bureaucratic boondoggle businesses which beg for corruption.


183

Paying to have trees planted to offset the carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, carbon offset companies could declare one tree yours, but tell a thousand other buyers it is theirs! A supporting solution could be another parasitic government bureaucracy to track trees, a greater opportunity for corruption, graft, power and profit! Gore, a prophet for profit!

Paying to have trees planted to offset the carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, carbon offset companies could declare one tree yours, but tell a thousand other buyers it is theirs! A supporting solution could be another parasitic government bureaucracy to track trees, a greater opportunity for corruption, graft, power and profit!

Added to this situation, Al Gore is heavily invested in businesses dependent on global warming legislation and restrictions. Some might say he is putting his money where is mouth is. Others might allude to the snake oil salesman, selling a phony elixir, fooling the people for his own power to profit.

Gore seems more a false prophet for profit! A savior for hire! How does this relate to Dr. Reidy’s revelation that, “We should expect scientific

researchers to have their own agenda.” Dr. Reidy went from leading a school district to a BOCES district to the largest BOCES district in New York State. His distorted philosophies were influenced by the education industry and will carry weight in the education industry. Following the trends at a school district level and comparing them to national and global levels, the trend follows. Research is seen as an opportunity by those in the education industry to sell their own agendas. He is a reflection of and carrier of education industry fuzzy thinking. Consensus vs Proof

So, we cannot expect this scientific research to be the truth or even as close as they could get to it. Rush Limbaugh has made the statement science can’t be consensus and consensus can’t be science. He says this, and is correct, but confuses the issue. Science requires proof. Proof, the third step in the scientific method. Proof is found in an honest search for the truth, using the scientific method, then putting the data out there to be analyzed and questioned.

Scientists of the middle ages believed the earth was the center of the universe. They agreed and came to consensus. That consensus was perpetuated by ignorance and intimidation. They persecuted those that proved different. Proof is the necessary ingredient to scientific discovery. Consensus is the tool of the snake oil salesman, the conman and the crook. Would users of such snake oils have been suckered in without ignorant consensus!

Without good data for their computer models, their research is no more than the computer generated special affects inserted into our fiction movies to astonish and astound. If pursuing their own agenda is seen as ethical, it is easy to change variables in the computer models to get the results they want. Their intention seems to be manipulating our senses and our minds to make the unbelievable, believable. Like the magician they depend on illusion and the slight of hand to make us believe something they want us to think is real.

We can’t afford to trust these researchers, members of the education industry that are seeking more money and more power for themselves. Scientific research seems to have become just another marketing study and program, using a focus group to gauge the climate, in order to put money in the pockets and power in the hands of these scientists.


184

One group says Embryonic Stem Cell Research is the answer to the cure of many diseases plaguing members of our society. The other side points out, their have been no areas where embryonic stem cells have been successful. However, umbilical stem cells have been shown to be successful in many areas and are able to be used in the same way as is hoped for embryonic stem cells. Why then put us on the threshold of creating embryos, life, then killing them?

Money and power is the reason. Researchers want government money poured into the embryonic stem cell research. Is the myth being perpetuated as a means to market a group’s personal and professional agenda to perpetuate their personal and professional fortunes and power? This political football which has no proof of success is being promoted for individual group’s access to power and profit.

Early childhood development has taken the same path. Long pushing for putting children in school earlier and earlier, to indoctrinate them for purveying power! They ignore the research that says children’s creativity therefore interest will be greater if they are allowed to be children. Time spent playing without regimented programs is far more conducive to their advancement.

Full day kindergarten, now pre-K, next pre-pre-K, is a project to engage every opportunity to indoctrinate young children into the realm of research to pursue ones agenda instead of looking for the truth. This is the primary behavior of the education industry, marketing to manipulate rather than communicating to inform. Media Support of Consensus Over Truth

This push for consensus over truth is perpetuated by the media as well. Truth appears as unnecessary to the media, as it is to the scientists. This hands power over to these people in a way that allows them to expend little effort for the power they are given. This places the fate of man and woman in the hands of the disingenuous, dishonest, incompetent and lazy. We are allowing them to brainwash us without question, without a fight.

The desire to influence for profit and power seems to be the same motivation of scientists and educators. Experts have become marketers, not those honestly well schooled on a subject. This puts the reins of power in the hands of the persuaders instead of the honest Samaritan, the politician instead of the statesman, the liar instead of the teller of truth.

This is the battle of truth against lies that will decide the direction of the human race. It appears as though the mantra of “Implementation is Completion” is as big a part of

the scientific industry as it is its sister industry of education. (When looking at US illegal immigration policy that was established first in the sixties, reintroduce in the 80s, and the failed policy is about to be reapplied today our political industry follows the same pattern.)

In other words we sell something to the public. We finance it through the people’s hard earned dollars. Then we implement the program. We never check on it, evaluating it to access its viability or validity or actual value of the program. They never really seek any results other than the use of public monies. They never really look into the truth of a program, leaning on the marketing propaganda rather than using the scientific method and proving it as fact, as truth. These industries promote the propaganda for their own profit and power, with blatant disregard for the truth.


185

This is the result of the opinion Dr. Reidy defended and it is evident throughout the many academic related industries, (education, science, political and journalistic) “you have to expect researchers to have their own agendas.”

The same seems to be true of journalists, most who are spawned in the halls of academe. Academic industry, journalists are also very willing to trade truth for their own power and profit. Belief in their untruths allows them not only money and power, but the ability to influence politics. This power gives access to greater profits.

We’ve all heard the saying knowledge is power. It is true. It helps us as individuals get jobs and keep them. It helps us find new jobs when we can’t keep them. It aids us in our decision making throughout our lives. The more knowledgeable (experienced) we are, the better our chances of living a good and productive life.

Controlling the flow of knowledge makes individuals and organizations even more powerful. Deciding who gets the knowledge and who doesn’t allows people to control who advances and who doesn’t. It allows governments to control entire segments of their population.

Controlling the accepted knowledge that is in that flow multiplies the power many fold! Not only control of the flow of knowledge, but what that accepted knowledge will be. For instance that we accept it is alright for researchers to have their own agendas changes the knowledge pool.

It establishes that truth is no longer important to the research and the knowledge pool. Dishonest propaganda to support ones own position is okay to put into that pool. Whatever it takes to sway thinking to ones benefit will be put into the stream of knowledge to manipulate people. The marketing culture gains importance and credence over the values (ethics and integrity) culture.

Who most has the ability to control knowledge in such a way? The academic industries; the industries of education, science and journalism! Banding together for a single purpose of controlling knowledge, they control the distribution and what is allowed to be distributed. The more we watch it, the more we see how much it diverges from the truth. It isn’t by accident.

Perhaps marketing is the science that has taken over all sciences and educational disciplines? Marketing to manipulate is accepted, rather than communicating to inform of the truth. The politicians do it, the teachers do it, journalists, even their readers do it. Research is not a search for the truth, but an opportunity to market, dishonestly, in the pursuit of profit and power.

A commitment to the truth is gone. Researchers have lost that commitment to the truth. Certainly politicians have lost that commitment to the truth. Sadly journalists and educators have lost that commitment to the truth. They are all seeking their own agendas, for the purpose of attaining profit and power. It seems marketing, a dishonest science since its inception, is the bible of the academic endeavors, science, politics, education and journalism.


186

CHAPTER 19. EDUCATION ELITISM AND NEA ILLUSIONS (How Poor Performance Becomes The Norm)

Listening to Reg Weaver, on CSPAN on July 7, 2007, was informative. President of

the NEA (National Education Association) a teachers union with 2.7 million members makes it one of the largest unions in America, if not the largest and perhaps in the world. Her sister union the AFT, (American Federation of Teachers) with a little less than half the members 1.3 million members has the same agenda. Combined 4 million teachers support the education industry agenda.

This does not include the multitude of administrator associations, which function like unions, for superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals and any other such position concocted for education administration in the minds of education industry leadership. You are talking about a massive lobbying machine driven by the education industry to influence and manipulate government on their behalf.

Mr. Weaver revealed many of the motives and weaknesses of education today. It wasn’t programs or positions they intended to change, because those things were all in support of the expansion they seek.

Their position is strengthened by their investment in the status quo. They have set the rules to the game, established their position in society. They maintain that unhealthy course with unions, associations, lobbyists that manipulate established education norms and mores. They have conveniently warped the vision of education and sold that vision to those they have indoctrinated into their failed and subversive methods.

Mr. Weaver’s talking points were merely reruns of those I have heard from local educators. More money is the answer to their failures to educate. He insisted they needed more resources, more certified teachers: more hocus pocus, more things. He went on to say more money invested in education would bring a greater return to the economy than tax cuts. Money to educators is held up as the cure all, when statistics bear out that while more money has been going to education, the performance of our education system has diminished significantly.

His words showed a dedication to money far more than education. A materialistic education industry sees resources poured in more necessary than the validity of their own efforts. So many of his words pointed directly at their ill aimed motivation, yet educators are not held accountable for their miss guided motivation.

When asked if the NEA might support the states improving education, he said that was the states responsibility, not the NEA’s. He clearly showed responsibility was not something he and his union were interested in. Change had to come from somewhere else, and it was obvious by his rhetoric, the education unions would act as an anchor anyone seeking improvement in education would have to drag. Focus On Input

One of his most revealing diatribes was his proclamation it is more important to focus on input than out put. He wants educators to teach whatever they wish and never have to answer for it. In this way it leaves educators schedules opened to teach their own personal, political, and union agendas, and never be accountable for the subversion of the education


187

system. The sabotaging of children’s education for their own purposes, profit and power, is perfectly fine by the low standards they set.

Focusing on input rather than output is an excuse for educators to serve their own selfish agendas. In other words what they tell the kids, indoctrinate them into, is more important than what the kids learn, what they glean, learn from the input. This is the perfect approach for indoctrination and programming rather than teaching and learning.

Input over output relieves educators of responsibility and accountability. It says effort is more important than results, even if that effort is self-serving, misguided and ineffective. Effectiveness and efficiency of teaching is wiped from the landscape using this input over output philosophy.

Input over output encompasses the education industry’s entire philosophy. It is a childish and immature example to show children. But it is a primary lesson educators teach students. As long as there is effort, that is all that is necessary.

However, educators have not only taught the mantra of effort being enough. They have shown students how to feign effort. How to build the facades of effort without really expending any real effort is a lesson they exemplify, therefore teach. It a tried and true, an excuse well used.

They can play at working, teaching what they wish, what is fun for them. If it is fun for them, the students must be having fun. There is no pressure and their industry, unions and associations will defend and support these positions, attempting to make educator’s lives happy and stress free. In reality such a phony input does not create an output of satisfaction and accomplishment. Educators cannot feel those things when they are living a lie, or many lies. Those lies openly promoted by the education industry.

This false effort serves educators well. They can tell themselves, “their doing a good job. “My gosh,” they say! They’re trying, trying as hard as they can!” They can blame everyone else. It’s the parents, society, government, lack of money, all reasons they are failing. None of it falls back on them, and their avoidance of accountability and responsibility by focusing on input rather than output. How stupid or selfish can Mr. Weaver and education leadership be to say and promote such an ass backwards system.

Without paying attention to output, any input becomes acceptable. The need to look at, analyze or judge results or meeting goals renders any input sufficient no matter how ineffective, dishonest or useless it is. This gives educators the luxury of doing whatever they want in the classroom and never having to answer for it. When they are questioned, they are outraged anyone has the audacity to question their motives, excuses and intelligence.

Think about what Mr. Weaver is promoting! It is ludicrous! What if the auto makers took such an approach, focusing on input and diminishing output?

Putting top quality steel, the best leather for the interior, the supposed best engineers putting it all together, but at the end of the production line, the finished automobile doesn’t run. That failed result is ignored, because the input was thought to be the best. The people involved really cared, so the fact the automobile is neither auto nor mobile, makes no difference. I know it sounds stupid.

Let’s put it to an even more farcical degree. How about the healthcare industry? The best doctors carry out the best known procedures, but everyone is dying. The focus on input, we know by evolved standards the very best is being done, but everyone is dying. What do we do?


188

The results clearly show something is wrong. If we ignore them we keep doing the same things that are killing all the patients. Healthcare people believe the input to be the very best it can be. What do you think about that? Results are essential to evaluating input!

While I am a proponent of the saying, “Actions speak louder than words,” educators construct their words to support their feigned attempts at educating. Many actually believe the words disguised to look like they care about the education of the children and service to the community.

If you listen carefully, and sort through all their educanese buzz words, their motives are revealed. Personal and professional profit and power attained by expanding the education industry. Expanding it and its impotency, because in the long run, their consistent failure to educate, both inside and outside the industry, requires more resources, more money and more manpower to attain a success they have no intention of attaining.

They have made education a primary industry. They see education in itself as a tool for the betterment of mankind. Not what the education gives, the tools to improve society through productivity, producing ideas and things that improve the lot of mankind.

Yes, formal education has that potential for society. But for the industry to see itself in that roll leaves egos opened to become drunk with their own power. It appears this has happened. They see themselves as the answer to the betterment of society, not as merely one of the tools that could help.

They fail to see many making the greatest contributions to mankind were not those the education industry selected to carry that banner. They have often overlooked or shunned those that became the great contributors. As Mark Twain said, “I never let schooling get in the way of my education.

Life has more education opportunities than schools ever had and can ever have. Particularly it has more of the important, life changing, life affirming and everlasting educational events. Schools can really only teach the basic tools, preparing students for life. Schooling will by no stretch of the imagination totally prepare a child, a student to handle what life throws at them. That takes life experience to refine.

If the education industry supported actions that helped people take advantage of those opportunities, they would be contributing much more to society. The commonsense much formal education sucks from the head of children and students, pursuing its own agenda, steals the vision and ability for people to make those common sense decisions and throws them into a procrastination of over education stupidity when real life occurs.

They talk life long learning, but they want to control that learning. That is their strength, their power, their self-esteem. Children dependent upon the education industry becoming adults dependent on the education industry for additional learning hands great power to educators.

With the resources available today, life long learning can easily be put I the hands of the individual. They can take the reins of their own life, their destiny and expand themselves as they choose. Except in the extreme cases of extremely difficult and advanced subjects life long learning can be at the finger tips of the people.

Then why is the education industry expanding as it is. Because the industry does not want to lose this power they have attained. They don’t want to teach that kind of independence. People would not accept industry indoctrination so easily if they were capable and confident enough to teach themselves.


189

That’s why the hollow system of self-esteem taught by the education industry is so important. By instilling false self-esteem, by telling the children they are special, no matter what, they set them up on a weak base. When they become adults and begin to question, educators know how to attack. The have constructed the weaknesses in the armor (self-esteem) of those they teach.

They quickly embarrass and break down the confidence of those adults they failed to teach properly as students. They strip them of the false self-esteem they disingenuously supplied to just this purpose. This nurtures the dependence on educators. Indoctrinated automatons are what educators seek. Not free thinking, independent, individuals that question power.

This would be a tremendous loss of power by the education industry. They want to sit on a throne and dictate philosophies they think improves the human condition, but actually destroys it, like drugging children to control them. They want control and they think if the education industry is in control that is the best for mankind.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Educators have already taken that power to an arrogant hypocrisy that makes them right without debate or accountability. Whether they have achieved that ultimate in corruption we cannot be sure, but they are certainly on the path to attaining it.

Education unions take no responsibility for where they have steered education onto the rocks of ignorance and personal agendas. It is always someone else’s fault, the parents or lack of money, but never their failure to focus teaching what is important over their own agendas. That certainly shows the position of his union.

In fact, educators have become lazy, fat and happy in that materialistic mode. The practice a dedication to their unions far more than to the students that were being short changed by their system! Educators; Entitlement to Elitism, The Path They Choose

Educators, for the most part, expect, practice and teach entitlement. Not only entitlement to money, benefits and material riches, but also things provided them so their generous paychecks need go only for their everyday extravagances, luxuries and extras that add to their station as decadent elitists. They expect all incidentals to be provided like that all inclusive vacation to a plush resort.

They felt nothing should be paid by them for healthcare and retirement, unlike what is happening in most of middleclass society. Their unions and associations have even lobbied to make them free of taxes the rest of us pay. Perhaps that is the point they seek not to be part of the middle class, but are building their position to be among the upper class.

Maybe it is this desire that extends their vision of elitist entitlement. Educators expect an entitlement to an elite place in society, because after all, they are molding our future. They control future of the country, of our planet? They, feel entitled to the ultimate respect, because they see themselves as so vital to the world? Perhaps even saviors of the world and civilization as they would like it? Such self-importance sows the seeds of arrogance that grow into corruption.

Still, the expected entitlement has reached no boundary. They seem to feel entitled to dishonest, even corrupt behavior. They envision themselves with the right to preach and teach their personal, professional and political agendas in the classroom. They perceive


190

themselves with the right to lie and cheat to perpetuate and profit from their personal, professional and political agendas being marketed in the classroom. Self-righteousness appears to make any action for the cause that is supposedly the children and their futures, acceptable to them and they feel should be acceptable to us.

They seem to feel so deserving of entitlements they give themselves dispensation for corruption and expect not to be held accountable let alone judged for spreading it throughout education. Education is becoming cradled in corruption, educators entitled to use dishonesty freely. A majority of educators have gone the way of the politicians. You know they are lying when their lips are moving. If they are just repeaters of the education talking points, this is certainly a fair comparison. How can such educators be trusted? How can such education devoid of integrity advance civilization positively?

Money that actually made education better might help. More and more money to

support failed education only exacerbates the problems. They assault thought for getting things done that will really help society.

In focusing on input, they can indoctrinate students into thoughts and visions educators wish them to have. They can push their own preferences without conscience. They don’t have to look at the output enough to realize they have sent the children into the world disadvantaged. That the have shortchanged the children sending them into the world with rhetoric and platitudes instead of the solid tools of mathematics, reading, writing and science that would help them throughout their lives.


191

In his appearance of C-Span, Mr. Weaver presented no more that an NEA promotional video. He marketed his position and the failing stance of the NEA. It was pathetic.

Mr. Weaver gave the same canned answers I have heard from local educators. From superintendents, principals and teachers, to local and state education and union officials, all promoting their selfish agendas! The education talking points designed to fill their own pockets.

His answers were glittering generalities and deceptive vagaries, nothing for which he could be held accountable. His words were so similar to those coming out of the mouths of educators from anywhere in the country, you know they were supplied and rehearsed talking points. Like Max Headrum, programmed automatons, programmed to spread the propaganda of a selfish, out of control, industry.

This is the education example! From the top down, the bottom up, peer to peer, their talking points reveal the prevalent education attitudes and agendas of profit taking and avoidance of responsibility and accountability.

Sadly, union leadership co-opted the greed of corporate and government counterparts, catering to their own agendas and the squeaky wheels. Ignoring the hard working silent majority they often step on to promote their selfish agendas.

Today’s union philosophies, much like government’s, promote mediocrity. The best examples are teacher’s unions, sabotaging public education for expansion of their own position, profit, politics and power.

As shown with Douglas Martin, Elmira Teachers Association President September 18th letter to the Star-Gazette and Raymond Bryant, Superintendent September 19th letter as examples of education industry union facilitated mediocrity. They bragged seven of thirteen Elmira schools (54%) are not on the under performing schools list. They practically ignore the six underperforming schools (46%) and fly banners, hailing rapidly improving or high performing schools which are merely facades for a failing education system.

With education industry lobbyists manipulating government, setting the education agendas, rapidly improving schools and high performing schools may in reality represent mediocrity. The defensive excuses of Martin and Bryant reveals the fatal education industry philosophy of show over substance. Testing – Teaching to the Test

Teaching to the test is a complaint oft expressed by educators to combat standardized testing to evaluate for teaching results. If a test is given, it is like they can’t help themselves, they must teach to the test. If they make up the test, they will also teach to it, or they will make up the test to what they taught, perhaps indoctrination into their own agenda.

Being forced to teach to the test is another diversionary tactic like focusing on input over output. If you look closely you’ll see, these two mantras are promoting much the same things.

Tests should be based on curriculum. Curriculum should be based on the important things students should be required to be familiar with that will help them in the future. Therefore teachers should be educating students to the curriculum.

Many additional public dollars are collected for a multitude of administrative position, expanding the education industry. Positions like data administrators, curriculum


192

coordinators, teacher development coordinators and a myriad of others. Such positions have expanded budgets at the local, state and national levels. So, sophisticated, effective, efficient and consistent curricula should be established. There is little reason for them not to be, other than the education industry does not want it.

With consistent, comprehensive and well-founded curricula established, the children out to be taught what is important for them to know. They are being provided with the information they can take forward in life to help them survive and then thrive.

If teachers are following and teaching to the curricula consistently, that is all that is necessary. All they need to do is teach to the curricula and then they will automatically be teaching to the test. It s their own ineptitudes, weaknesses and doubts that makes them feel compelled to teach to the test. If curricula are honestly established and teachers are competent, the process is easy.

However, such may not be the case. There are honest educators! Sadly, I do not think it is a majority. In individual classrooms, the right approach may be taken. When the education collective is assembled I think honesty is diminished many fold, sacrificed for the personal, political and profit agendas of the education industry. Yes, as the collective gathers honesty diminishes. When confronted with the power of education unions and associations, individual honesty folds up like a cheap suit and is put away in the drawer.

So, why would effective and pertinent curricula not be desirable to the education industry? Because it would open the door to responsibility and accountability, the thing the education industry most fears and is fighting to keep its minions free of.

These mythological excuses for testing serve the same purposes as the ass backwards approach to focusing on input over output. It is rhetoric designed to avoid responsibility and accountability. It makes it so results aren’t necessary. It avoids results so educators can tell themselves they tried, even if they haven’t. It makes it easy for educators to lie to themselves, making their industry more and more dishonest each day.

If they have these excuses, they can spend their time in class teaching whatever they wish. They can indoctrinate students in their personal, professional and political agendas without being held accountable or even questioned. This is how the education system has been set up to build, maintain and defend its power.

Is this rant against testing just another avoidance of accountability for educators. Tests evaluate the validity of results obtained from their teaching.

Isn’t teaching to the test the fault of teachers? That’s what they chose to do because they lack the confidence in their teaching abilities.

We pay additional administrators to do various tasks. One such that has raised our taxes is the curriculum coordinator. All educators have been educated in curriculum development.

Outcome based education consisted of compiling a folder of work. That was the outcome. Not analyzing the work to see what the results were and guiding a student to improvement. While it professed results, it was the model for input over output.

The once brainstorm Outcome Based Education is a similar example of input over output and teaching to the test. Though it would seem the opposite outcome based education is a bait and switch. It made people think this process was results oriented, as would be indicated by outcome based.

But no, it took a body of work and said this is the outcome. It made the input the outcome as has the education industry done with so many of their actions and programs.


193

Indoctrination, an input for the education industry is an outcome for them. Perhaps indoctrination is the desired result. Outcome based education says to students, “You have done well. You have filled a folder. The quality of work is not important.”

It does not go back and evaluated the work, looking for places for improvement to help the student. Such would be contrary to the strategies and goals of the education industry so the people would be forever dependent on them for learning (or not learning depending on how you look at it) expanding the education industry, increasing its power and profitability.

It really put students on the same road as teachers. Make an effort or even feign effort and that is enough. Practical results are not necessary.

It pays for educators to abandon logic. They profit from the extraction of common sense from the community they supposedly serve. Their established dogma is dedicated to this end, sabotaging perhaps usurping thought in the community to strengthen their own position in society. One program after another like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks

The philosophy of focusing on input over output is like so many of the education industry’s formulated philosophies and dogma. Many mention throughout this book. Programs for program’s sake, meaning instituting programs to enhance an institutions résumé when the programs are in the catalog for looks, not attaining the results they are supposed to achieve.

Or the Implementation is completion attitude. The program is instituted and never looked at again to see if it is really working. If the money allocated for the program is properly spent. This is all the education industries dedication to show over substance; show over go. It is worshipping at the altar of quantity over quality because it brings more money to the education industry.

Along with this goes the phrase, Marketing to Manipulate, rather than communicating to inform. It is about selling the idea, the vision, not attaining it. Effectiveness and efficiency are of little importance, existence and expansion are the goal. Failure assists that goal, so failure is an acceptable result for educators.

The muddled puddle of money they encourage is not about improving education. It is about money, sloppiness and chaos that allows many educators to skim from the puddle. Not unlike politicians. Educators have become a like breed.

Educator elitism is not the result of a great ability and skill in educating children, but merely because they are among the group known as educators. Those educators with elite skills are jammed into the pack, neutralizing their abilities so as not to bring reality, shine the light of truth revealing the weaknesses of the education system.

Educators see themselves as superior merely because of their title, very much like corrupt aristocracies throughout history. The education industry rails against such selfish monarchies and dictatorships, unless it is theirs and they are the beneficiary of the abuse of power.


194

Cary Nelson

Carry Nelson, President of the Association of American Professors in a debate with communist turned conservative author David Horowitz on C-SPAN in mid 2007, told the story of how the education industry polices itself. It was the story of a history professor who was clearly substandard. Reported by students and known by the administration, Nelson related he hadn’t received very good raises for twenty years till he was being paid to the level of perhaps a teaching assistant.

I was screaming at the TV while Horowitz was smirking at what Nelson seemingly unwittingly revealed. The substandard educator was allowed to hang on for twenty years teaching poorly to students day after day, week after week, year after year till his incompetence robbed the lives of thousands of students of the proper education. This acceptance of nurturing less than mediocre teaching was Cary Nelsons proof that the system policed itself.

When he talked about others in the education industry screwing up, his pat answer was they were relieved of any serious responsibility. So all those educators seriously screwing up are moved out of responsibility and put someplace else in the system. They become a parasite that sucks energy and finances from the education system and opportunity from students. These incompetent educators are paid through a career of substandard performance. One wonders how bad an educator must perform to be considered poor enough to be given a lifetime welfare position in the education industry and how many of them are there. Perhaps it is most of them?

There is an education welfare system where education screw ups are placed, and replaced by another educator, possibly another screw up. Like failed programs never cut, we continue to pay for failed educators, not replaced, but added to, in order to solve the problems. What message does that send to the replacement?

This appears to be a form of “Feather Bedding” like the railroad unions did when engines went from steam to diesel. They forced companies to keep the position of fireman, even though there was no fire to stoke. The man sat in a chair day after day, being paid for doing nothing. It along with the same kind of “Feather Bedding” in management with vice presidents brought about the demise of the railroads.

This contractual; formal “feather bedding” in the railroad industry has been made an informal reflexive leadership action in the education industry. Dead wood is allowed to continue in their jobs, delivering little to nothing to its customers. Or it is moved out of the way, but still paid, adding to the cost of the service the customer must pay, even though much of the dead wood delivers nothing to the service.

It appears by the definition Cary Nelson has given example of addressing poor performance only aids the expansion policy of the education industry. It promulgates the failure which brings more money, profit and power, expanding the education industry. But, it leaves public education in dire straits because of its failures, and it weakens a nation that has the potential of changing the world for the better.

His example is not a rare case. It appears to be standard operating procedure. As more and more crappy educators are put on the shelves back in the store room, the inventory builds and costs. Eventually, these lousy educators attain a majority. Then they are able to control the industry. Education crap becomes the standard and poor performance becomes


195

the norm. It has become the norm and many educators think poor performance is good performance. That is all they have ever seen or been required to do.

CHAPTER 20. THE DEDRICK NARATIVE While I felt the behavior of individuals was essential to analyzing the overall

behavior of the school board, I still strongly considered not doing this chapter. I did in a couple of other chapters examine individual’s behavior to characterize board behavior. I felt and feel it is essential.

Looking at Al Dedrick an eleven year board member is necessary to evaluate the board and judge its behavior. Dedrick who practically begged to be made president in his last year on the board, actually cultivating sympathy to get the position after years of trying and board members knowing he wasn’t qualified for the job. Sadly neither were any of the others over the last ten years.

Mr. Dedricks continually outrageous behavior must be looked at to understand the joke that was the Horseheads school board for at least ten years and probably much longer. Joyce Budney, Mark Brinthaupt and Al Dedrick most influenced the character of the school board along with the superintendents.

I remember a board discussion when I said, “good leadership examines its positions

questioning their motivation.” Mr. Dedrick and then board president Wanda Myers argued, “they felt they should

never question their own motivations,” which apparently they felt to be pure and righteous and certainly “for the children”. Time has shown this to be a board philosophy.

Why would someone trying to do the right thing never question his/her motivation? Probably because they knew they were selfishly motivated. Likely on an ego trip of personal satisfaction, they did not want to think about testing their conscience lest they awaken it. Perhaps to find out their actions weren’t as righteous as they had themselves convinced they were. Honest self-assessment is the sign of a good leader.

Mr. Dedrick needed to imagine that my confrontation of the Horseheads School Board was a major part of my life. However, it was not even a large part of my writing life. My novel “A Christmas Trilogy”, which consumed much time, still was only one small aspect of my life; though a significant portion of my writing life for that period of time.

I informed Mr. Dedrick my “Reflections of a former School Board Member” might end up fitting nicely along with my works on leadership. It might end up being an important smaller piece of a larger work. Even with those many writing projects I work on, I probably spend a tenth of the time or less on my computer that Mr. Dedrick does gossiping on the internet.

So, I wrote him, “do not worry when you receive Part 3, and perhaps Part 4, and maybe even Part 5. Though it is tedious for me and I would rather spend the time on more enjoyable projects, your actions have made it necessary. There are times in life discipline must kick in and the distasteful projects approached.”

It seems often those diagnosing others actually seem to be diagnosing themselves. Still, taking some of Mr. Dedrick’s concerns to heart, I reassured him, “do not worry. I will continue to do it at my own comfortable pace, so as not to interfere with my life.”


196

July 19, 2004

Al Dedrick; In the past I had always considered Dedrick’s memos and letters attacking me too

irrational and idiotic to warrant an answer. They showed great signs of a lack of touch with reality. They usually indicated his prejudices and were just not conducive to getting rational points across to him.

Anyone arguing a contrary point could likely expect to see him close down to any logic or facts presented. This was a major symptom of what I think to be his bullying nature. His approach left him closed to see anyone else’s point of view. He had to be right. His actions would have been of no importance to me if he were not a part of the Horseheads School Board and unfortunately an influential part of the district education system. His status in the district indicated his outrageous statements and behaviors were accepted by those in power, board members, teachers and administrators, all who guided the district.

So, to combat his ignorance, arrogance and/or stupidity, whichever it was, and the board emulates quite well, my conscience has required me to keep my presence known to you and the rest of the board with a letter here and there.

A History of Threats of Legal Action

In his certified later dated June 29, 2004 Dedrick again threatened me with legal action. This veiled threat of legal action for harassment was at least the third time he had threatened me with such.

The first time was before I ever got on the board, in the certified letter of June 9, 1995, the initial time I ran for the board. Again a thinly veiled threat of legal action against me and two other board candidates and one supporter, regarding declaration of money spent during my run. I had declared all I spent well before the deadline in my first declaration and had no idea what his problem was.

Then in executive session when my letter to the board on the Earth Science Lab issue, which included copies to the science teachers that were at that session. He threatened to sue me if I ever said anything bad about him. This was after Mr. Reester threatened me with a possible law suite (in Principal Kent’s name) because of what I said in that letter. I would think being the tough guy he played, Mr. Dedrick wouldn’t need a safe place to pile on. But he wasn’t so brave. He needed the majority behind him to step up, and with that majority his arrogance grew. Neither Dedrick nor his close ally Superintendent Reester were above blowing smoke to display their machismo.

The reason I confronted the trends of arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy that followed Dedrick and the board was because such behavior warranted confrontation. Those behaviors appeared to be exhibited with great pride and satisfaction by him and the board. They consistently bullied and intimidated many of the people that came in contact with the board.

Attacks, Not Facts

While Mr. Dedrick accused me of not being factual, most of what he said or implied in his memos and letters so misrepresented the truth I think I could have justified calling him


197

a liar. Then, I thought if he really turned out to be as stupid as he appeared, they were not lies. Perhaps he had convinced his ignorant mind of his fabrications. The possibility was the most dangerous lies were the ones he told himself.

Statements he made in writing, besides being purely childish attacks were wrong. They reflected pretty much a completely incorrect version of events that happened. Though he threw a question marks on the end, they were misleading and projected false information. That is the trend his point of view seemed to follow. It was based on his likes and dislikes rather than objective and rational thought.

I responded to Mr. Dedrick’s June 2004 letter in July, beginning by reviewing his irrationalityin a memo he wrote on November 11, 1999. This was such a rant that it did not deserve answering at the time. However, it displayed him in a way I think deserves addressing with the addition of recent rants. I felt the other board members should take a closer look at him and at themselves for giving credibility to and accepting such ranting.

The board needed compare his arguments to the rational and objective thoughts put into my own writing, which I will admit, they had many samples. There is a big difference between his attacks and my presentation of information to inspire debate and to get them to think. I acknowledged recently I had attacked more, but lethargic board members apparent acceptance of falsehoods (supporting their visions) had made it necessary.

Case Study: Board Self-evaluation

In the first paragraph of Dedrick’s November 11, 1999 letter seemed to be defending the underhanded way the new board self evaluation came about.

At the meeting in early September 1999, it was shown to us and we were told we would discuss it at a future meeting. I figured I would hold my comments till that meeting, voicing them in the open forum for all members to hear. At a meeting almost two months later I heard the work was completed and it was practically a done deal. Nothing was said about further discussion until I expressed my concerns.

I gave Dedrick my original notes on the spot, which I was very apprehensive about doing, to have my ideas considered. The discussion never took place in front of the public. It really didn’t matter, because my ideas were summarily dismissed, except one none threatening token issue.

There was a discussion of this with regard to the statement I asked to be put onto the board self-evaluation, “The board deserves to be trusted by the public.” A couple of board members argued, we are elected by the community, of course they trust us. They thought such a question of trust inappropriate, showing their arrogance and ignorance.

Then he was handed the superintendent’s evaluation to revamp. This occurred just a few weeks before we were to have the superintendent’s evaluation completed.

I am a believer a performance evaluation is an ongoing, year long process. I had my evaluation of the superintendent 98% complete at that point, on the old forms. I later had to put much of my evaluation in a many page addendum, because the new form did not fit the hours of work I had done previously. My addendum was eventually voted on by the board not to be added to the superintendent’s evaluation.

All that he wrote showed no justification for how those projects got sneaked through the system. They were purely personal attacks and excuses.

He finished that paragraph with the following attack. “However, we have had some


198

rather full meetings since then and some of us choose to go to the NYSSBA four day meeting in Syracuse. Is there some reason you choose to consistently avoid the conventions and training each year?”

I wrote, “Yes Al, I have several reasons of which I’m sure you do not approve. I went to the NYSSBA training for new school board members and found it to be the same propaganda you and the board bombarded me with, in the midst of too much eating and drinking. It is indoctrination and not training, geared to buying board members off for a free weekend’s entertainment and patronizing pats on the back for just being on the board. I see it as a waste of the district’s money and my time.”

I continued, “However, the break down of the point or points you attempted to make goes to the validity of your argument. It was just another irrational and immature personal attack trying to look intelligent. I can tell you, it didn’t. There was no argument. You and the board apparently feel you have a right to push those things through because you feel you are righteous.”

A Specific Case Study That Proves Board Dishonesty and Arrogance

The next paragraph of the letter showed the same incoherence and immaturity. He related my endeavor to goal setting, a clumsy transition. Goal setting was an issue Dedrick was hot on when I first came to the board. Then he attacked again writing, “If I recall over a year ago you were made chairman of the goal setting subcommittee. What happened? Did you decide it was too tough a job; that it is easier to sit back and heckle, than to come up with a solution?”

I think the start of his next paragraph said it all and I think the closest thing to the truth I’ve witnessed from him. He charged, “You talk about “deaf ear” syndrome and I am guilty! I have listened to as much of your philosophy of organizational process as I can stomach.”

“What happened?” He asked next! I answered, “You should have been aware of what happened. It took place right

under your nose!” I reminded Mr. Dedrick what happened! The Goal Setting Committee actually came

to a conclusion with an established process. We emerged from the last meeting, Joyce Budney and Superintendent Keith Reester, actually patting me and themselves on the back for our accomplishment.

I warned them both as we walked through the conference room door after that meeting, “Let’s not congratulate ourselves yet. Let’s see if we can make it work first.”

I reserved my enthusiasm because the Horseheads School Board and district often congratulated themselves for implementation of programs that never worked. When they can bestow honors on themselves for such incomplete and ineffective works (half assed is the phrase my dad would use), there is little motivation to bring a project to positive results.

We had written up a definite and clear procedure as to how it was to be carried out. We followed up with reports at several developmental stages to keep the board apprised. We did the final presentation in front of the school board. The school board voted on it and approved it as the process that would be used by the board for goal setting and achievement of goals.

Then we came to that portion of the year where we would have a meeting to review


199

our progress, review old goals, adjust and set new goals if warranted. The documented process was not used. Superintendent Keith Reester threw that agreed upon process out without even a token try.

Once I saw where we were heading, I tried to voice concern during the meeting, but to no avail. I was ignored. I voiced my concern directly to Joyce Budney, the board president when we came out of that meeting and she expressed a like concern. I never received any feedback after that. I was ignored every time I asked. The entire issue was swept under the carpet like so many others. Just like the Community Survey Committee that took up people’s time, the results of which were ignored.

We were later told that some manual said the superintendent was designated to set goals for the board, which really does not make sense. The board should be well enough qualified to be setting goals for themselves and the superintendent.

Reester gave the board some token goals for the board and himself. The assigned goals that took all responsibility and accountability from the board and superintendent, leaving nothing to achieve! It left the work for others to do and the board doing nothing but its usual rubberstamp duties.

I suspected that what happened is exactly what would happen, but I did all the work

anyway. I worked hard to toil through the problems and develop a system for setting goals and achieving them. Assistance from the other members was sparse. In fact I sensed foot dragging and road blocking. I dragged them through the process anyway and we came up with a solution and conclusion even though my instincts told me it would be for naught. It was worth the effort, because it would show me where the board and superintendent really stood.


200

The ability to set and achieve goals was clearly not the goal of the board and superintendent. I was put through the motions just like the Community Advisory Committee or the committee working on the Athletic Code of Conduct District leadership inconsiderately wasted those people’s time, energy and resources to appease or stall them.

They must have gauged my ego to be like theirs, needing feeding. If something I do does not work, I don’t get satisfaction from it. False pats on the back for selling out my values do not float my boat.

I wrote, “Then you (Dedrick) with blinders on and head in the sand have the audacity to say to suggest it was my fault the goal setting plan did not come to fruition. The superintendent undermined the agreed upon process and the board president and board sat idly by and allowed him to do it. What you possess is either a lot of nerve or just plain stupidity, or perhaps an overwhelming bitterness that creates a crippling bias you just cannot step beyond.”

Dedrick went on to say in paragraph three, “We have spent numerous meetings trying to deal with your concerns only to be consistently told we lack integrity and now we are arrogant to boot. I find your continuous characterizations offensive and slanderous. I have zero problem with my integrity.”

I wrote, “So Al, the committee came to a conclusion with a specific plan, agreed upon by the board, that was thrown out before it was even given a chance. This is how you spent time trying to deal with my concerns. Any rational human being would clearly see how your questionable behavior added to my concerns. These actions seem disingenuous and dishonest to me. Al, do you think the behavior described exhibits, “Respect for other’s opinions, experience and talents?”

Yes, the way the board president and superintendent dealt with the agreed upon process clearly lacked integrity and contained great arrogance. A board that would allow this type of thing to happen, particularly multiple times, certainly would fall into the same category. Logic dictates, the board’s and Dedrick’s behaviors are so distorted by the arrogance nurtured and practiced, it must be confronted.

I continued in the letter, “Al, I need to remind you, if it is the truth, it is not slander. As much as you might see my standing up for what I believe as offensive to you, it is not malicious. It is what a citizen must do when they see the school board process become so corrupted and warped.”

Avoidance of the Word Integrity

While I was on the board, I used board incidents to suggest we weren’t being up front. I did not point the finger at any one person. Certain board members always seemed to take personal umbrage to the use of the word integrity, even though it was used in a general sense. The conversation never got beyond. I think that was the purpose, to kill the conversation so certain board members would not have to self-inspect. Most rational people I have talked to have said, board members behaving in such a way had something to hide.

Yes, I think Al Dedrick had zero problem with his integrity. Not that there is not a problem with his integrity, I think the lack o fit just does not bother him.

The last part of paragraph three began another irrational attack as he went on another raving rampage. “I am not sure,” he wrote, “why you came on the school board because you certainly are not here for the children's or community’s welfare and best interest. Your only


201

objective is to find some way to field test your plan for intimidation reduction.” His arguments and assertions were so incoherent and irrational he accused me of

wanting to field test this plan or that plan. One time it’s the intimidation plan next its integrity that is the issue. I see problems that are hurting the district and present solutions. District leadership and Dedrick seem to be extremely threatened by solutions.

I wrote to him, “If you didn’t hate so much, you’d not hate my words just because they came out of my mouth. You might see the vision and the overall plan I am presenting. Can you honestly say an environment with integrity and without intimidation wouldn’t be in the best interest of the children and community?”

More Attacks Without Facts; No Logical Arguments

Dedrick went on in paragraph four writing, “You need to talk to your fellow board members not your computer.”

There was a reason I wrote to Dedrick and the board to communicate. That is because I felt I needed to document what I said. It was obvious the powers on the board were not listening and after awhile I just got tired of talking, saying the same things over and over again. I needed to be able to prove the things I said, which were so often ignored by the board.”

While Dedrick’s words themselves were proof of the treatment I received from him for three years, it they also represent the treatment I received from the board for three years. That night you reference in this paragraph, I was going to tell Keith about the letter. I was just so warn out, I didn’t really care. I didn’t have the energy. I actually felt bad about it at the time.

However, in retrospect, Dedrick, the super intendent, the board president and the board, proved to me time and again they really didn’t deserve respect. Too, this brings to light major hypocrisy practiced by the board. I was guided to be up front and communicate my concerns with the board in advance of meetings, characterized as a matter of courtesy. The board often blindsided me with its actions. The issues mention in this letter of the board self evaluation, superintendents evaluation, the results of the Goal Setting and Community Survey Committee all exemplify the blindsiding they engaged in certainly support my assertion.

The rest of the memo is five paragraphs averaging 4 lines of that very small type each. Each one is a barrage of run on sentences containing incoherent ranting and raving like the rest, but worse. It is a series of irrational attacks, pretty much the way Dedrick always conducted himself. I think one paragraph will sum up those last five paragraphs, and provide a fair rebuttal too.

Community Survey; Ignoring The Facts; Another Example

Referring to the philosophy and people I spoke for (paragraph 7), you wrote, “Finally I strongly disagree with your characterization of this huge mass of the public that constantly talks to you about the Board’s arrogance and “deaf ear. I do not believe they exist, except in your own mind.”

The Community Survey presented in early 1998 showed only 39% of the respondents could say they had confidence in the board. This survey was done in the name of the board.


202

This was another case where the board president and the Superintendent assigned a committee to do a job, and then threw out the results because they were unfavorable to the board.

The “Community Survey of 1998” was another excellent example of the board president’s, school superintendent’s and school board’s arrogance and dishonesty. The board majority decided not to discuss the survey? The results were never looked at, yet Dedrick had the nerve to say this was some made up group of people. Again I asked Al Dedrick in the letter, “Do you think the behavior described exhibited, “Respect for other’s opinions, experience and talents?”

When given the data and facts, Dedrick chose not to acknowledge them if they were contrary to hisr mission! Sometimes he was hit between the eyes with facts and his blind desire for thoughtless conclusions allowed him to ignore the facts. He certainly possessed a selective “blind eye” and “deaf ear”. He was afraid to look at information objectively lest he had to change some of his deeply entrenched prejudices!


203

The middle of that paragraph was most telling. The Dedrick rant went, “If they are real people I want names and faces! Don’t tell me you need to protect their identity this is not Nazi Germany.”

My God! How could he write this, read it back and not question himself? In conjunction with a full page of constant ranting and raving it presents a pretty ugly image. I can visualize his face turning beet red and the usual vein popping out in his forehead whenever he was addressing so one from the public confronting his opinions. How could a school board not shudder at his written outburst?

Dedrick finished paragraph seven by saying,” My interpretation of the lack of public participation is that they are satisfied and confident in the way the Board and Superintendent are running the district. If the public is so dissatisfied why do we struggle to find school board candidates?”

In conjunction with the survey and budgets being voted down, he always came to this interpretation because this is what he wanted to think. His own words and refusal to look at the information showed him to be hell bent to think the same old irrational and snobbish thoughts.

Sadly, most people have thrown up their hands and given up. They do not want to be treated in such a way. That’s why they don’t attend the meetings or run for the school board. Eight members, then adding the superintendent treating you this way can become a very heavy burden. Even some not against the person standing alone, would hesitate to stand up and receive that kind of treatment. Intimidation as it is called.

I haven’t given up! I have fought back against this warped and irrational harassing behavior. Then I am accused of harassment!

While my philosophy is a compilation of ideas and opinions from many years of talking with people, I could not put a name or face to them. I listen, think, question and formulate ideas, visions and philosophies. I question my conclusions often. Seeing what Mr. Dedrick wrote, I would never give him a name or face, even if I could. I feel he would hold it against them and act against them in some way given the opportunity.

In a more recent letter, stated my future communications with him regarding board action should be factual, not personal or speculative. He, the board and its president have behaved in consistently dishonest manner over the years, as established by much documentation. While he keeps factual information tight to the vest and uses marketing slogans as gospel, I think my personal speculation based on the trends represented by my documented series of incidents I present is legitimate.

As Dr. Phil says “past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.” The documentation I have supplied to the board over the last seven years gives an excellent portrayal of the board character, or lack of it, and how it continues to revel in its weaknesses into the future.

Charges of Bias: Hah! The Kettle Calling The Pot Black

Finally regarding his letter mentioned above, he wrote, “The information being fed to you by Sharon is biased and far from complete.”

My answer is, “The information I am acting on is coming from a number of sources. Much, perhaps most of it, coming from the board and superintendent. The questionable ways, which such issues are addressed and actions carried out by the district leadership,


204

says much about the validity of their actions.” “Secondly, surprise, Sharon may be bias as to her presentation of the information!

She is after all, fighting for her professional life. Some partiality would only be natural.” However, I believe it is clear Mr. Dedrick has been extremely narrow-minded in his

desire to win on issues, whether right or wrong. Being opened to debate and different ideas or even truth does not seem to be within his range of thought. The board and administration has clearly shown over time these same negligent behaviors. The need to win over the desire that justice is served is clearly a dominating board tendency.

I think the bias Mr. Dedrick brings and that of the board and district leadership is directed by that need to be right and attack all that disagree. This warped view that district leadership has is much more dangerous than Sharon’s predisposition which is tempered by her good character.

Even the superintendent and board members have strongly praised Sharon’s honesty and integrity. It has been made evident it is a major part of her nature. This is the character in which her partiality is embedded.

Dedrick, the board and district leadership, seem to be entrenched in a much more fanatical bias. It is couched in ego, arrogance and the need to be right. They possess a deliberate, dangerous, and destructive unfairness. Who would more likely be believable?

While Dedrick has suggested I go for professional help on numerous occasions because of my obsessions with integrity and against intimidation, I wonder if they are obsessions and if so are they such harmful obsessions. I would merely like to see signs of integrity surface in the board behavior and acts of intimidation disappear. Dederick’s negative views of integrity and the absence of intimidation might be indicators he needs to seek help for his obsessions, which I see his obsessions as more destructive than the ones he has accuse me.

I believe I have shown Dedrick, the board and superintendents have employed bullying and intimidating tactics regularly in the performance of their duties. It has become the nature of the leadership beast in the district. It is really pathetic that they find someone who stands up to their poor behavior and cry foul. Then, that is how bullies tend to behave.

Those things I have been accused of seem to be greater characteristics of district leadership. They seem to point the finger, then commit the behaviors in a far more egregious manner than that they have accused me. There are a number of other behaviors employed by leadership of which I have not been accused. I think in your case and that of the board, a bit of self-inspection is certainly in order.

Over the years I was the one harassed by the warped behavior of Dedrick and the board. Other people from the community experienced the same thing. I believe Sharon Reed is being harassed by the action taken against her. The courtroom may be the best place for the dissection and discussion of these problems, issues, behaviors and philosophies. It might be the most appropriate forum for such a debate.

I regard to Dedrick’s threat of legal action I wrote, “If integrity and honesty have really come to mean nothing in the real world, as it has on the Horseheads School Board, I might lose. If arrogance and hypocrisy are going to be allowed the normal tools of the education industry, I might lose. If integrity rears its head, I will win! I’ll take that chance. Bring it on!”


205

On April 28, 2006 I wrote a letter to Mr. Kubissa of the Star-Gazette. It went; Dear Mr. Kubissa;

I hope you will give me the same opportunity to address Mr. Dedrick’s charges as you have given him. I know mine may seem as a personal attack, but how else do you answer a personal attack on your credibility when the person uses false and manipulated information as the basis for the attack.

I hope you will print the letter below as is. It is only a fair and balanced addressing of the issue.

Dear Editor; The hypocrisy of Al Dedrick, Horseheads School Board Member, accusing anyone of

spreading false information is laughable if not so reprehensible. Dedrick mischaracterizes as bullying my writing over three dozen letters to the school

board and superintendent asking questions that have received no answers. Community members question at meetings with no answers forthcoming. Information distributed is often contradicted by leadership’s own words. Dedrick’s distorted definition of detailed information seems to be dogmatic (yes stamp) excuses from education industry talking points.

Dedrick totally falsifies the facts arguing, “the announcer/concession stand cost taxpayers only $14,000.00.” Not true! The entire $68,000.00 came from the general fund, all taxpayer money. At the April 11

th board meeting Dedrick justified the removal of employee

contributions from the healthcare portion of the budget disguising the 2006 increase of about $1.4 million over 13 percent as only $384,222.00 or 3.68%. Manipulate the figures to rationalize as you wish, the Data Administrator’s compensation is $250,000.00 over two years for another tailored crony appointment producing little. Such leadership actions dominate the Horseheads School District.

Dedrick spouts with authority, a dominant board (attack dog) voice, demeaning and intimidating community members. Heading the board finance committee and district audit committee he plays fast and loose with the truth. Dedrick whines like the bully confronted! If one voice threatens to destroy the district, is the district as good as marketed?

It is said, “Figures don’t lie; liars figure!” Given the facts, the community will decide the truth and who is endangering the district!

Sincerely,

Gerald J. Furnkranz My letter was not printed in the Star-Gazette even thought Lori Cass wrote a letter to the Star-Gazette supplying the documentation (meeting minutes and FOIL letter from the superintendent) of what Mr. Dedrick wrote about me was wrong as was the information he cited to be true.


206

I was told by Mr. Kubissa he didn’t want us bickering back and forth on this issue. So he let Dedrick make his false charges about me to the public, and prevented me from defending myself. I announced my dissatisfaction with the paper in the following letter.

Mr. David Kubissa Star-Gazette 201 Baldwin St. Elmira, NY 14901 May

8, 2006 Dear Mr. Kubissa, I am extremely disappointed I was allowed to be personally attacked three times by

Horseheads school board member Al Dedrick in the Star-Gazette, yet not permitted to defend myself. You saw where his information was totally false, yet enabled his deceit to stand. You have been made aware of numerous occasions information from the Horseheads school district leadership has been erroneous. Your refusal to confront, sanctions their dishonest behavior.

You alluded that the Star-Gazette was looking foolish because of my letters. I would argue your paper is looking foolish ignoring behaviors of questionable honesty. Bias, the result of close ties, has the community seeing the image of the funny papers. Shirking responsibility the Star-Gazette looks silly for refusing to look out for the good of the people.

Like Dedrick’s irrational allegation that I was out to destroy the district, yours that my letters are making the paper look foolish are signs the organizations themselves are deficient. One voice cannot threaten institutions of quality.

I appreciate things you have taught me, and the letters you have allowed me in your paper. However, I must view your actions as preference to Dedrick the dominant voice of the Horseheads school board.

Unable to answer Dedrick’s false charges, you know many people will assume I am guilty of his accusations that you have been given evidence clearly showing them as false. What kind of newspaper allows that to happen? Is it any wonder your paper’s stature is crumbling in the community?

With Regret,

Gerald J. Furnkranz

Al Dedrick Horseheads School Board One Raider Lane Horseheads, NY 14845

September 15, 2006 Dedrick; As usual your letter to me is filled with inaccuracies and misinformation. I would

expect nothing less. Your childish attempt to chide and intimidate is as ineffective as your credibility. This reminds me of your letter scolding the Casses for contacting too many people on the board and administration with one of their questions and causing confusion. In fact, your own mismanagement and incompetence was the real culprit causing turmoil.

First, I have always sent a hard copy initially, even if I did send an electronic copy. I have not reverted back to this as you inaccurately state.


207

The reason I began sending an electronic copy was because I discovered previous board president Joyce Budney and superintendent Congdon were withholding some of my letters from the rest of the board. This forced me to make sure knowledge of my letters would get out so all board members would be aware. At one point I paid the postage to insure all board members received my letters. That became expensive and should not have been necessary.

Another reason I send a hard original copy is I cannot trust you, the board or administration. Mr. Dedrick, you knowingly lied in your April 15, 2006 letter to the Star-Gazette to discredit me. You put your lies in writing in the newspaper showing you have no shame or integrity. If you don’t outright lie, you bull shit, bluff and bamboozle. These are all forms of manipulating the truth. You, the board and superintendent have participated in these actions often, showing again and again you are not worthy of trust.

I can see you fabricating some kind of scenario or excuse because you didn’t get a letter with an original signature. That is why you have always received a hard copy with an original signature.

Also, if I send it by regular mail I am pretty certain you received the letter. I’ve had trouble in the past with Mr. Congdon and Cathy Knowles not receiving E-mails from me. I like to ensure that you get them.

Second, I sent another version of the September 11th

letter on September 12th

to make a correction on a date in the text. I try to be as accurate as possible in my correspondence with the board. I do make mistakes, but try very hard to avoid them. I know how you can use the smallest error to disdain and dismiss communications from the community. I am not like you, the board and superintendent leaning on inaccuracies, mismanagement and incompetence for plausible deniability.

Third, I am all for saving taxpayer money, but it seems as though you are jumping over millions in your dishonesty, to pick up a few dollars fueled by your childish tantrums. The copying of my letters is nothing compared to the millions you waste with your dishonest behaviors. It sounds like this is an off-the-cuff Dedrick policy instituted just for me. Still, paper copies are not an issue.

The Horseheads community has paid a fortune to bring technology into the district. You have been a major proponent to do that. I think you and the district only use the word technology. Your ineptitude fails to use the equipment that has been provided, to anywhere near its full potential. Therefore it becomes a game, another waste of money.

I’m sure with all the toys you have provided in the district, you have the capability of scanning a hard copy, making it into an electronic (PDF) file. That is a very simple operation. You probably do that with many of the other documents you send to teachers and board members. Then my letter can be sent by computer to all the board members and the teachers I sent the letter to.

If you cannot reason out and troubleshoot solutions on such simple levels, is it any wonder you cannot set or achieve goals as a board? Then, should we be surprised you keep attempting to institute programs that are known failures?

Fourth, the letter you sent to me was just an attempt to exercise your ego, which has been taking a major beating of late. To call having to confront the truth as harassing is once again the whining of the bully confronted. Another tantrum from an immature, spoiled child used to getting his own way.

No longer will that happen. The public has seen through you and your pompous


208

behaviors. They know of your recurring dishonesty and that of the board and superintendent.

You might better view my letters as “Character Education” for you and the Horseheads School District leadership. You should take advantage of them. If you go back and look them over, you’ll see there is a moral point or lesson to each of them. This has been my goal since I began this process about ten years ago as a board member.

However, my educational program has been as ineffective as those instituted by the board. In fact, they have followed the same path. The character of the board and most of its members seems to have drastically diminished over the last ten years as has the results of programs instituted in the district.

One thing you can say about the “Character Education” program I have provided is it has cost the district very little, perhaps some copies. Then I think you could also surmise its failure has not been due to the quality of the program, but the quality of the board and administration. That is probably true of the other failing programs also.

I know my letters to the district leadership have become increasingly disrespectful, and I am deeply sorry for that. However, the chronicled change in your behavior seems to be getting progressively worse with each incident of dishonesty you are caught. Cronyism, dishonest campaigning in schools, lying (even in newspapers), cheating, stealing and overall incompetence just doesn’t do it for me. I cannot seem to muster any respect or even a façade of respect for your standard operating procedure. That probably puts this letter in the category of “unacceptable correspondence” as defined by you. They will probably remain that way as long as integrity is missing from your lexicon.

Dedrick, I always enjoy answering one of your letters. It allows me to use a tong-in-cheek style I don’t often get a chance to use. It is like sparring with one of those vinyl punching bags with the weighed bottom. I look forward to future debate.

Most sincerely,

Gerald J. Furnkranz

Enclosure: Al Dedrick’s September 12, 2006 letter

Horseheads School Board One Raider Lane Horseheads, NY 14845 August 21, 2006 Dear School Board Members;

Over many years I have heard the Horseheads School Board bemoan poor attendance at their meetings. It was blamed on the laziness and lack of interest of the community. This was merely an excuse to blame the community for a result that clearly was the responsibility of the school board. It was also used as a rationalization that the community thought the board’s and administration’s performance was good enough. Blaming it on the community was a false face donned by a board that never wanted the accountability of community participation and did everything it could to discourage it.


209

Over those same years, the board ignored input coming from the community. They treated community members rudely, belittling many, discouraging them from coming before the board again. Simply put, independent thinking community members addressing the board were treated with disdain and disrespect unless they swallowed the board and administration agenda hook, line and sinker.

In March of 2005 many community members were invited to a special budget meeting called by the superintendent and chair of the finance committee. An excellent knowledge of budgets and finance was exhibited by those attendees. They asked the tough questions and made logical observations and suggestions. They provided concrete ideas for addressing runaway budget growth. Though it was implied by the superintendent and requested by attendees that there be another meeting, it never happened.

A suggestion of a Community Financial Audit and Consulting Committee was similarly avoided along with community input for the budget. The board and administration are afraid of knowledgeable input and help from the community. It would challenge the incompetence they comfortably practice to support their agendas. Congdon and Dedrick appeared intimidated by the knowledge, expertise and skill of community members and did not want to be held to a higher standard.

The lack of community interest excuse from the board is clearly a fabrication and holds no water. Community input is not desired because their thinking is contrary to the incompetent methods championed by the superintendent, administration, school board and teachers union. The facade of community lethargy is supported by a formal campaign by district leadership to keep the community out of the schools so the selfish education industry agenda can be carried out with no questions asked.

The superintendent continually promised answers to questions from the community. Those answers seldom if ever came. If they did, their accuracy or honesty was highly questionable. What was the point of coming to a meeting when you couldn’t trust anything said by the board or administration.

Attendance is increasing, because community members are becoming aware of the dishonesty and incompetence that emanates from board, superintendent and administration. The reason people are attending is they know they cannot trust the board and administration. They want to see what the next lie will be. They want to see if they can slow down the incompetence and corruption that is fueling the education engine in the Horseheads School District.

Now that attendance is increasing, the board is setting up rules to silence and ignore community members that attend. Before community members were just ignored, now leadership wants to set up a formal system that automatically ignores the public. Road blocks to community participation are becoming methodical. In its arrogance, the board does not want to be made aware of how incompetent and corrupt it is. The board prefers to hide from the facts. Their behavior brings truth to light, the real face of the Horseheads School administration and board is to reject the community and defer to its own tyranny.

A deceitful board president and deceptive new member, Al Dedrick giving intentionally false information in a letter to the editor and letters to community members and David Searles running an illegal campaign to get on the school board, would like to silence the public so those members do not have to face accountability for their dishonest actions. Continuing the notorious line up is board vice president Brinthaupt, who fraudulently signed and had notarized false expenditure statements for his school board candidacy, and board


210

members who facilitate those lies. Hollow pleas of ignorance from the board sage add to his lack of credibility. They signal where the future of district leadership lies. They guarantee dishonesty and deceit will prevail. Selected by this group, the new superintendent should certainly be suspect. Is this what the community can expect from district leadership? I’m afraid nothing more!

It used to be community members were given token audience by the deaf board. Leadership let community members speak, but the board would turn on its “Systemic Deaf Ear”, hoping the dissatisfied community members would blow themselves out like a storm. It often worked. Many community members just gave up.

Discouraging the community from attending by abusing them with the board’s misbehaviors, ill intentions and selfish goals has always been the motivation of district leadership. It was always fairly obvious. Now the community is seeing the unvarnished truth.

The increased deceit coming from the district leadership is forcing people to attend. Community members cannot believe what they see and hear, both in behavior and validity of information. Aghast at the corrupt boldness of district leadership, they are taking note.

Symbolically, it used to be as if the board was saying talk to the hand. Now, the board and superintendent have been confronted so much for dishonesty, you say talk to the lawyer. You have to cover yourselves because you can no longer coax an honest word from your mouths. You have lied so often and easily it has become reflexive.

The district lawyer will find a way to advocate the district’s dishonest actions instead of advising you against your illegal and corrupt behavior. Justifying your crooked intentions dictates the criteria for a choosing a lawyer. This is the character of the team the Horseheads School District leadership has built.

The community is awakening and sees what you are doing! Perhaps your warped and deceitful power can keep different thinking, honest people, off the board. You can continue to nurture an environment that breeds the bacteria of fraud. You can enable sleaze to dominate and thrive in the district. You can continue to aid the culture of corruption to fester like an infection, putrefying the school district body.

People will continue to sound the alarm of the impending pestilence that is contaminating our local education system. They can warn of the communication of the disease of dishonesty, hypocrisy and arrogance from our school district leadership. That is the only communication the community experiences from the district leadership. You have gone too far in the direction of dishonesty. The community can work to change that and it appears as though they are doing it.

Sincerely,

Gerald J. Furnkranz Richard Mills, NYS Commissioner of Education

Horseheads School Board


211

CHAPTER 21. Combating Education Industry Corruption: A One Man Battle

After years of courteous negotiation, I came to the conclusion the education industry

institutions overall and at the local level needed to be confronted, even combated. The level of arrogance and hypocrisy coming from the education industry at national, state and local levels demands it.

My initial experience with the education industry was my own school experience. Highly influenced by the teaching of my parents, I regarded educators highly and with respect. I placed them on a pedestal, and in many areas I still believe some deserve to be. My parents had and taught that respect for educators. Perhaps too much!

It’s not that I couldn’t judge bad teachers, or should I say inferior teachers, but none seemed to be so damaging that being in their class was a complete waste of time. They were held to guidelines that kept them productive in teaching children. They followed the outlines, perhaps exhibiting little creativity and talent, but those long established paths allowed the poorer teachers to be successful in teaching the children. I guess you could say, at the very least they had discipline, desire and the dedication to teach children, so they used the resources available to succeed.

In my own experience, even good teachers could not always hold my attention when my mind seemed so overloaded I could not store one more piece of information. It was nothing the teacher did. They were probably as competent and interesting toward the end of class as they were the beginning. Then, perhaps not, maybe they fell off after forty minutes as did I. Still, I managed to learn at the level of an average student.

Even with the best teachers I would come to a point where I would lose discipline completely and seek refuge in the outdoors, staring out the window. In my chemistry class, where I did fairly well and liked and respected the teacher immensely, still I would reach that point and stare across the room to escape out the windows. He would see when that happened and choose that time to ask me a question. Thank god we didn’t have the eighty minute classes intellectual educators have instituted as superior today.

My distraction today might be called attention deficit disorder. I look back as an adult and can justify, I was a kid whose brain was merely overloaded and I could not take another piece of information at that point in the period or day. My head felt like it was about to explode.

Going on to college, I immediately learned how talented many of the teachers I had in high school were. In one year of high school economics I learned everything I did in four semesters of college economics. Though, in college my understanding of terms and describing them in my own way was not acceptable. I had to present them as they were in the book. Memorization was not my strength.

My abilities in Spanish diminished in my four semesters of college. As in economics, I think my abilities diminished because of the teacher. Except for a few shining stars, two, my college professors were far inferior to my high school teachers. So, I went into the world with great respect for teachers in the public schools. They had given me much that helped me survive in the real world and hopefully would help me to thrive.


212

Away From the Halls of Academe

My life took me away from the halls of academe and I couldn’t have been happier. I was sick of sitting in a classroom and having information jammed into my head. I had thought my four years of college was a mistake. Perhaps I would have been better off to go into the world and come back to school another time.

A number of years working aboard ship made me yearn for evenings at home. It wasn’t the romantic life visiting exotic ports. It was smelly petroleum tank farms, consisting of the ugliest landscapes one could imagine. They magnified my appreciation for beauty and the country, opened space with fields, flowers and forests.

With a few attempted escapes, one a short stint as a bartender, my dream job, where I would meet girls and be popular, soon bored me. The sea called me back. However, when I started feeling my brain rusting up, I made the escape, with a little help.

The Normal Life?

The desire for what I called the normal life hit me in my late twenties and I made the final escape. I thought if I could just get a job at Corning Glass that would be the greatest of opportunities. I would be happy. It was a great learning opportunity. I became sort of a utility man that was used to fill many and diverse positions. From production to quality, organization projects to product research, training to creating manuals, leadership and management, the learning and building of skills was fast and furious. Still, I became restless for more.

When I went on to Cornell from Corning, I again thought I was going to the ultimate situation. In many ways it turned out to be. It was a major opportunity for learning and also for developing new skills. I applied many of the leadership and management skills and theories I developed at Corning. Like Corning, much of the learning did not come in positive ways, but from negative of leadership that are so prevalent in so many of these large institutions. Combating

Combating any of society’s major institutions is a difficult road to travel. They have developed great power, supported by institutional arrogance and hypocrisy that makes them oblivious to any accountability to the people. Integrity is not a major issue in their lexicon.

Private and public institutions have similar characteristics in that way. However, private institutions require accountability because of the need for profits. Public institutions do not have that mechanism of accountability, therefore often times there is no accountability.

The education industry is one such megalithic institution, forging ahead on momentum of their massive weight, not the power of results. Combating the failures in public education is a difficult process. The education industry is a large monopoly, with established momentum that is difficult to affect. It is backed up by many organizations accustomed to stalling progress and maintaining their position. They are status quo oriented, not progress or results motivated.

Such organizations include government and the education industry. Many segments


213

of that industry include teachers unions, which include two of the largest unions in the world, which if combined, like was their intention a few years ago, would comprise by far the largest union in the world.

Education administrators associations are also a large part of these stalling, status quo organizations. There is a huge web of power in education set on keeping the mediocrity that has been so profitable for them in the education industry.

Many people get frustrated, feeling that they cannot stand against the huge education industry machines. As much as they feel you can’t fight city hall, they now feel they cannot confront the arrogant academic asses. They see themselves as helpless, being swept along by the momentum of this plodding, self-serving, power usurping institution.

Organizations established to do this are rare. Often if such organizations do exist, they usurp the individuals concerns to get their own agenda addressed. The energy is then sucked out of those individuals in very unproductive ways. Sadly, valuable energy is dissipated, falling impotent on the education landscape.

While I cannot say my approach has had any major success, I can see an impact of my actions. I have carried them out as an individual, me, my own group, my personal organization to put pressure on the selfish education industry. Being my own organization allows versatility and diversity.

I have developed a strategy as though I am my own organization, including combining with other organizations when it fits the goals of both. Then I can move away, taking actions others and other organizations would not take. I can act in unison at times and act on my own at other times. In this way I am limited only by my own conscience. I am not limited by political pressure and correctness, and no one else suffers for my actions but me.

I will outline the actions I have taken. It will entail my own initiatives to take on the tunnel vision of the one eyed green monster that is education. The institution with its vision deficiency sees itself as the savior of the youth, the country and the world.

Letters To The Editor

I started writing letters to the editor many years ago. First it seemed such letters were a good way to let off steam. To get the burden from the heavy weight in my heart, I sounded off to relieve the weight. Things I saw to be wrong I could voice, if I was willing to take the criticism that goes with it.

When I began, few were doing that in regard to education. People were afraid to make any negative comments about the industry, even when the conclusions were obvious and common sense.

There was reason for this fear. Intimidation and shows of hostility were known to come from the halls of education. Parents didn’t want their children punished for speaking up. No one wants to be demeaned or shunned and that is what education leadership seemed to be expert at.

It seemed educators were making more than decent salaries, yet they still complained collectively about being under paid. Looking at the results over recent years it seemed they were asking for higher pay for ever decreasing performance. Suggest that might be the case and the ire of the industry could be focused upon you.

My letters to the editor evolved to be very blunt for several reasons. First I found


214

with educators, softening the message so as not to offend them only gave them the ability to ignore what was said.

Second a mere 250 words allowed for a letter makes it difficult to make your point. Complex points must me navigated to communicate with educators. Multifaceted education deficiencies are even more difficult to get across in 250 words. When addressing educators in writing, you must address all their standardized complaints and dogmatic excuses they have been indoctrinated to espouse. You have to counter every formulated rationalization and talking point they will contrive to avoid getting outside ideas across to them. You are combating their gigantic, wide spread education marketing machine. This makes it even more difficult to accomplish explaining a point in 250 words. Later one of the local paper would reduce letters to 200 words, cutting some by 50% or more during the censoring process.

I did get reactions in the beginning. I got personally attacked on several occasions, with letters from educators as previously mentioned Mr. John Odums, a former president of the local Elmira teachers union. I really didn’t mind that, because I would answer with another letter. Debate about the issues concerning education was what I desired, but that didn’t seem to be what educators wanted. I answered Mr. Odums in the paper, “show me I am wrong and I will apologize publicly.” I never received a response from him.

I did see some positive results from my blunt letters to the editor. I may be taking on too much credit, but locally I think I may have changed the conversation. Suggesting there was anything wrong with education was taboo. Using certain words was not acceptable. After my letters began appearing in the local papers, I began seeing similar language, though toned down a bit, coming from the local papers themselves. It was as if my saying the words broke the sound barrier, broke the taboo. Those words could not be said, till they were said once. Then they were okay to repeat, opening the door for the discussion of ideas.

Then, I have also seen the newspapers let educators off the hook. They seem to think if they mention something once, educators will pay attention. Perhaps journalists have not yet figured it out that stalling is an education tool to maintain the status quo. Or maybe it is the fact that educators and journalists come from the same womb, the cradle of the academic. Perhaps an incestuous relationship, they will not pursue the lack of competence in education so enthusiastically. Then they might have to inspect themselves and admit they are using many of the same methods to cover incompetence.

Like many submitters complain, many of my letters were cut. Often it seemed like the best part was left out. Many times it seemed like the strength of the meaning was lost. Many others who wrote some letters complained about this also. It frustrated them and they gave up.

I’d say to them, if half of what you wanted to say gets cut and half makes it into the paper and makes people think, you are still better off. Half of something is better than all of nothing. Complaints falling on one or two people’s ears, serves far less than a letter edited for content, even if some meaning or power is lost, than nothing at all.

Yes, it would be better to get the full idea out there, but if half is all we can get, at least we’re getting something said. If you get frustrated and quit because of this, you’ve lost already. Get your word out, as much as you can, when you can even if it is carved up a bit and some meaning is lost. It is still better than nothing.

I’ve worked with editors for weeks to make a letter to the editor acceptable to the papers powers. I cut, altered and adapted it to get the idea out, sacrificing much of what I


215

wanted to say. I thought we were so close after several weeks and then it was rejected anyway. I’ve had three quarters of my letters rejected over a number of years. A letters cut by 50% and more. That only motivated me to find new ways to get the ideas out to the public.

That’s how my newsletter, “Integrity Quest”, was born. I adapted to what was at my disposal in a form people will want to view. I use various methods to get the word out in another way to another audience. I use every communication device available to me to get the information out. The more avenues I utilize to be heard, the more I will be heard. It increases the impact I may have on the issues. The School Board

From letters to the editor, I went straight to the school board. While those letters established my position more than the usual board member, they did not help my position on the board. They established and cemented many people’s opinions about me.

At times I thought I had made a mistake, because the image formed seemed to override my ability as a doer to actually achieve, accomplish and get things done. I was kept from addressing problems and getting things done. Perhaps we were not intended to address problems and get things done.

I wrote a number of memos outlining specific plans to address and solve recurring problems in the district. They included such things as sloppiness, the lack of discussion debate and results. Also included was the use of intimidation in the district that contributed to the lack of discussion and debate. The tendency for the district and board is to use marketing over communication.

From day one I saw an attitude toward the public that looked down on those members of the community with different ideas. I saw the demeaning and degrading of those offering ideas different than the education industry. Common sense approaches were derided by an elitist education attitude.

Many board members did not have education backgrounds, but often someone in their family did, or they absorbed the attitudes from educators surrounding them in the board environment.

I mentioned I had probably made a bad impression from the start with my letters to the editor. Most people on the board didn’t like my ideas or the way I delivered them. Or perhaps the fact I even delivered them.

My feeling was they didn’t know how to make things work, not that they didn’t want things to work. I thought if I showed them how we could solve problems that would help the district, they would respond. I thought they would be opened to such ideas, actions and solutions.

I wrote many of those ideas and actions up in memos, letters and proposals. In them I cited specific actions to be taken to address problems. After about a year I began to realize I was wasting my time. Yes, they had no idea how to solve problems. They were perfectly content to be rubber (yes) stamps, voting to throw money at the problems. They really had no intention for things to work. They were well entrenched in the status quo.

So, my board tenure turned out to be a battle instead of a team working together. My role ended up showing their actions, programs and solutions were not as wonderful as they would market they were. They were very self-satisfied with spending money and


216

telling themselves how wonderful a job they were doing. They never looked to see if it was spent effectively. They only cared they had the money to spend.

I ended up voting against a majority of the budgets and superintendent contracts. After all I didn’t see actual work on the budget that warranted approval and therefore did not feel the superintendent deserved the lucrative raises he was being given. They went through the budget dance, a presentation in which they read each line, to feign doing something. In reality no understanding was gained or substantive work done on the budget.

Overall, I didn’t feel I accomplished much in my three years on the board. In fact, I had a great sense of failure. After I left the board I did see a positive affect I had. Standing alone with no other support, I realized even though it appeared I had no affect, I did have a slight moderating influence. After I left the board, the superintendent was given an almost 8% raise. While I was on he received only 4.5 to 5.5% which I felt was much more than he deserved.

Attending Board Meetings

While I attended school board meeting for awhile before I ran for the board, I questioned the value of doing it. The only thing to be gained was seeing how poorly the district was run. At times you could hear the idiotic logic they used to come to conclusions and make decisions. You learned decisions were made for selfish and lazy reasons rather than using logic and common sense.

There was one positive I got from the board president at that time. President Connell said to me after I addressed the board, “I respect that you don’t just write in the paper, you come here and face us with what you have to say.” That was the way I conducted myself most of my life. I didn’t say something behind people’s backs that I had not said to their faces.

Initially I would not engage in that tearing down of someone’s reputation. Once I found out they could not be trusted, I would let them know what I thought and then would let others know, citing evidence.

I no longer feel the obligation to go to board meetings and let them know what I feel. It isn’t a fear of them, but a feeling it is a waste of my time and energy. I feel their meetings are filled with lies, misinformation and misrepresentation. I only need to go once in awhile, when major issues are being discussed to catch them in one of their lies. They will always be accommodating in that area, though probably no other. Why should I waste my time showing them respect when they showed no respect for anyone, not even themselves.

Overall attending board meetings served no useful purpose except to catch them being dishonest. It is demeaning, boring and excruciatingly painful to attend the meeting and be patronized with their bullshit. The dog and pony show taking place has little that makes one feel they are seeing competence or truth. What is displayed with no embarrassment is arrogance and hypocrisy, the tools of the district leadership and board and I fear the education industry. Letters To The School Administration And Board

I had written many memos and letters while on the board as a method of

communicating ideas. This has motivated me to depend more on the written message. I


217

always felt the spoken word could easily be ignored by those not wanting to hear the message. Once spoken it was blown away on the wind. Though I felt letters to the board and administration encountered blind eyes, I felt it was an important part of the battle. If I did not communicate my ideas to them, I had no right to battle and attack them. Also, I would have failed to use an opportunity to influence. The documentation of the history became an important tool.

That is what my strategy has evolved to using every opportunity to get ideas out there, communicate to the public and motivate debate. Taking advantage of every opportunity for discussion has been my approach. This even went as far a running for the school board again. Even if I couldn’t get voted on, I could add some different views to the debate.

Though I knew the board and administration had a serious deaf ear syndrome, I hoped for something to get through. But, even if it didn’t the material written could be of use in other areas. It can be used for the many methods of communication like newsletters, letters to the editor and letters to state officials.

The material can be used to hold them accountable for facts and actions. They are a history of that district regime showing recurring behaviors, trends and mismanagement. So the writing and communications serve a purpose even if they don’t seem to be having an affect at the time. Newsletters

While I continued with all the methods off communication to express my concerns about education, I realized I was not reaching much of an audience. Only about one quarter of my letters to the newspapers were being published and as usual, they were being cut, some drastically. Most of those that were being published were not the ones about education. I had seemed to have worn out my welcome with the local newspapers.

Letters to the board and administration brought up the old saying, if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, is their noise. The letters presented ideas and brought forth concerns, but if they ignored them, what good were they doing. Perhaps they would get to some board members, but likely not enough to make any changes in their questionable actions and poor behaviors.

When the Sharon Reed dismissal came up, I tried to get a letter in the local papers to bring attention to it. I could not get them in. Letters to the board and superintendent got little response except an invitation to a meeting with the superintendent where he told me I should trust him.

Eventually, I thought about a newsletter. I could use materials already written in letters to the administration and the board to let the public know some of the issues brought to district leadership’s attention. This would reveal to the public issues they were ignoring.

A couple of newsletters were compiled and a few copies passed out. The first version probably saw only 100 hard copies distributed and perhaps 10 to 20 electronic copies. The next two say a few more.

Soon after the newsletters appeared, I received an invitation to talk with the superintendent! I did take the superintendent up on his invitation to work with him to try to help improve some processes. We met on five or six occasions to talk and develop plans. I developed a written action plan for him. I followed up with written documentation of the


218

meetings and asked additional questions that came to the surface after the meetings. It wasn’t long till it appeared clearly, he was conducting a delaying action like I had

experienced while a board member. Things that were presented to the board did not support his request from me and the materials we were working on. Hiring a friend for the business manager’s position and sending half the business manager’s responsibilities to BOCES and the sabotaging of the Community Financial Audit and Consulting Committee showed me his real intentions. The fact that he wanted to talk to me now on these issues after the materials I had sent to him over previous years and received no response confirmed my suspicions as to what was going on.

In addition to written materials I had developed in other areas, I would also use some cartoons. I had been criticized for the use of cartoons by some people, friends, a board president, even my mom early on.

They caused embarrassment for those people reading them. They caused more for those in them. My mom thought it would detract from my credibility. I think some thought it was disrespectful and took away from the written message.

Truly with those people I was opposing, I don’t think I had credibility. My written word annoyed them as much as my cartoons and would be dismissed automatically. The written word was much less likely to be read, so it was more desirable to opponents. Cartoons got the ideas across quickly and enticed people to read the articles. This was the danger in the cartoons and made them that much more offensive.

Common sense, logic, critical thinking and problem solving are not the things that motivate education leadership. Their arrogance and hypocrisy allow them to dismiss such rational tools. It is like reasoning with a brick wall or trying to get blood out of a stone.

It is my observation the only thing that can get through to arrogant administrators and board members from their ignorant and hypocritical positions is embarrassment. Being shown to be wrong, if not widely noticed, would not change a decision. Being made to look foolish might bring consideration of change. It might slow the process, though probably might not change the decision or the direction. It would only slow them down. It was the only weapon I saw to use. The only vulnerability to open the minds of education leadership is their fear of looking foolish. To spare them from that fear was to play into their manipulative hands.

Also, I thought the cartoons would attract people’s interest. Several pages of writing, with nothing to break it up was uninviting to read. Remember reading a classic as a kid. The black, block printed pictures you noticed ahead of where you were in the book pulled you on and pushed you farther into the book. Them you arrived at the picture.

I felt people were more likely to read the written word if there were cartoons to entice and draw them on. I believe I was right to a large extent with that theory. I think most people had their curiosity peaked when they saw the cartoons. I think most enjoyed them. Even those that found them offensive had their curiosity tweaked and read some of the newsletter.

The cartoons served another purpose. The cartoons helped get those same ideas across in a picture that was described in more detail by the words. Getting ideas across as clear as possible was the purpose of both the written and illustrated message.

Newsletters were distributed both by hand and electronically. The first one was only a hundred copies which I financed. The second was about the same and the third even less. Then I found a benefactor that would have the copies made. This took the expense from my


219

pocket and all I needed was the time to distribute them. I started at a local grocery store parking lot, giving them to people as they entered and

exited. As issues got bigger I elaborated new strategies. While traveling locally, I took note of densely populated neighborhoods where I could pass out the most newsletters in the least amount of time. On my way home from work I would pick one, passing out about a hundred in an hour. I passed out 2000 of one by stopping after work some twenty times for an hour each, a few of times each week through the summer. I found a few other people that would pass out a couple of hundred, so I could get another 800 to 1000 distributed.

I started putting a form letter with the newsletter to encourage community members to express their concerns to the state. Expanding ways of getting the message out seemed to be a proper move considering direct communications with the district hadn’t worked.

The summer newsletter (hard copies) saw about 3300 distributed. The fall one was reduced to about 600. All total added up to about 4400. However that did not include the electronic versions.

Electronic Newsletters

While I had little access to email, I provided ten people with the electronic copy and hoped it would multiply like a chain letter. I have no idea how effective those electronic newsletters were. I see a potential that the electronic newsletter could exceed the hard copies passed out. My hopes are high and it is possible I exceeded those hopes. It is also possible I did not. But, they could still be floating out their in cyber space, landing in the right place now and then.

I was to find out recently the electronic newsletters did catch on. To what degree I still don’t know, but I know they got around quite effectively. Perhaps effectively enough to have the school district take the risk of campaigning within the schools and using school resources to campaign against me when I ran again for the school board. That could be a sign of great effectiveness for both methods.

Letters To State Officials

The Roslyn Long Island school district scandal brought attention to the State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi. Eliot Spitzer was also in the spotlight for his battles with corporate corruption. However, Hevesi mentioned periodic audits for districts to fight against such corruption.

While I in no way thought the behaviors in Horseheads were any where near the degree as Roslyn LI. I was seeing behaviors that were certainly questionable, and saw us on the entrance ramp to the road to Roslyn. I wrote a couple of short letters to them, enclosing with them copies of letters I had been sending to the board and administration. This did not take a lot of time since much of the material was already written and sent to the district.

I could use resources already developed, and communicate with another group of people. It was a way to expand the circle of communication in and attempt to get some action. Forty or fifty letters to state officials might catch someone’s attention. All it would cost was some stamps and envelops every couple of weeks. That small price was little to pay to continue and expand the battle.


220

The Next Step

The next big step would be to set up a web page regarding school district issues. It would confront bias district behaviors and it would magnify my actions that much more. It would further expand the affects of an army of one.

A place where I could display materials and information community members could never get from the school district.

A website would make information available at all times. It would be a source for individuals to download and share information. It would aid in the spreading and propagation of hard copies as well as the electronic ones.

Coordinated Attacks On Multiple Fronts

While I had backed off on letters to the editor because I was having little success, I realized again, a fraction was better than nothing. One out of four letters was better than no letters at all. Then it started to pick up again.

Perhaps the newsletters were generating interest of the newspapers in what was going on. Information seemed to be circulating farther than I had envisioned. They seemed to be noticing the shenanigans of the school districts and perhaps were back to supporting a watchdog effort.

My letters to the editor supporting the communication of the newsletters seemed to be drawing attention. Even in my small sphere of life, I started hearing some rumblings about the efforts made. Some people were beginning to notice these newsletters working their way to them.

Notice of receipt was beginning to come back from the letters sent to state agents. It began to appear as though one effort was stacking up on another. Efforts were drawing attention in many different arenas, the public, and state officials. Still, I had no idea if they were having any effects let alone positive effects on the school board or administration.

In fact, we were seeing the behaviors from the school board and administration getting worse. The superintendent seemed to become more quiet when he started being held accountable for his words. Misinformation from them seemed to escalate in spite of fewer words being said. Minutes didn’t jive with those things said at meetings. Neither did many FOILs received. More communications from district leadership just seemed to create more confusion. No two answers seemed the same, contradicting information was running rampant.

The combination of efforts seemed to be having some affect. Though slowly, it seemed to be gaining some momentum. While not in the immediate results of today’s marketing, there seemed to be a cumulative effect of these actions over a period of time. Perhaps that was the key, continuing the small efforts, hoping they would add up.

Budget And School Board Vote 2006 While it would be difficult at this time to assess success or failure of my efforts, it

creates many questions to be explored. One could see the corruption of the voting and campaigning process by the district as both a success and a failure.

While I lost my bid for a position on the school board and the budget passed by only


221

85 votes and probably shouldn’t have, it revealed some realities. My concerns about the lack of integrity and honesty in the district were exposed by this stunning example. That leaders defended the illegal action as their right further exposed the arrogance and hypocrisy I was warning the public.

If we only look in terms of exposing the truth, then perhaps my actions have been a success. If looked at in terms of reforming the unethical behaviors of school board and administration, we have a long ways to go to qualify as a success.

Perhaps at a minimum, the first steps have been taken toward that reform. That would be overconfident to even suggest.

What If More Armies Of One Developed

Think about it! What if a number of community members established themselves as an army of one? Individuals able to take the ridicule, conducting assaults! Periodically launching a mission against the district to uncover the truth, to demand effectiveness and efficiency in education could make a difference.

More letters appearing in the newspapers, more fliers on the streets, more letters to state officials might eventually bring the arrogance and hypocrisy in the school districts under control. They might also bring attention to politicians their own similar poor behaviors and failing actions. Such attention might put more emphasis on the education of the children instead of the status of the educators and politicians.

Cumulative effects would multiply, pressuring government and education leadership for accountability and results. Words distributed by one would support, perpetuate and spread the words disseminated by another. More truth would make its way to the people unleashing their voice to leadership for action.

Armies Of One Combining

The voice of each individual would seem the voice of a small group. Combined, the voice of those seeming groups would take on the appearance of a coalition of groups into a larger group. Such a group would project a greater voice than would normally be conceived possible. Perhaps this voice would catch on. More armies of one and bigger groups combining on occasion to support each other is an excellent tactic.

I fact this did work. Several smaller armies of one mobilized after the internal district campaigning was exposed. The single armies all went off in different directions scrambling to make a noise. From a distance it probably looked like a Chinese fire drill.

Some went to the media and sounded the alarm. I wrote an immediate letter to the State Education Commission. Other sent letters to the school board and found information on how to communicate with them formally in this situation. Some armies would direct media to other armies. Information was shared and spread like fire in a dry forest on a hot day. Perhaps we got lucky. Or perhaps we started making our own luck!

While I did have help in this matter, and was grateful for any outside help I received, if I did not sally forth as an individual and decide to keep pushing forth that way, I would not have accomplished what I have. I would have been stuck in the gate saying I can’t do this alone. While I have no idea exactly what it is I have accomplished at this point, you can be


222

certain I have put uncomfortable pressure on the district and its leadership. I have made them think twice about some issues. I have made them face things and themselves which in the past, their arrogance allowed them to avoid.

I will continue to go forth as an individual. I will be grateful for help. I will be part of an organization to address specific goals if others should decide to join the battle. Be assured this is a battle.

It would be great if as a group we could organize a letter writing campaign to the local newspapers when issues arose. It would be spectacular if the same could be done to the district and the state, sending letters to express concerns and catalyze actions. It would be wonderful if we had forty people, each one of which would hand out a hundred newsletters, getting them out quickly upon publication. Or forty people that would begin the chain of electronic copies! You’re talking about a small organization, a watch dog militia that could confront the arrogance of local school districts and put a stop to their misuse and abuse of the community.

This would be nice. But it doesn’t always work. If we each behave as an army of one and are dedicated to that, we will at least address the problems to some degree, perhaps having a positive affect on the society around us.

I would love the organization I describe. We could make major positive changes to education, bring integrity back into society. If it comes together, fine! When it is difficult to get people to help, individual actions will be taken.

I will always keep my army of one on standby. I will keep him in ready reserve, because when it comes down to it, he is the only one I can really depend on to show up when the need arises. I know during tough times he is the way I will always be able to fight the battle and try to make an impact on issues. If I waited for help, I’d probably still be waiting.

CHAPTER 22. Solutions To Sloppiness: A Tool of Education (2002) An overall sloppiness has entered the education industry. That sloppiness has been

embraced because of the benefits received by educators because of its existence. When the Elmira Heights school board met for its preliminary budget meetings, to

begin serious talks on steeply escalating property taxes, the superintendent announced, “we are going to have to get good numbers.”

With the property tax and budget escalation seemingly out of control, you’d think good numbers would have been available at the very first meeting. Even that thinking plays into the hands of educators that use sloppiness to cover their laxity in doing their jobs. The budget had been voted down the previous year.

It seems to me every budget should be approached with good numbers. When times are good, the finances should be handled as carefully as when times are bad. If approached that way, those bad times might not be as bad.

Unfortunately good times seem to signal spending waste. Spending waste then becomes the norm and educators can’t seem to break away from it. They are taught it. It is ingrained in them.

His announcement when the community voted against a study on a district merger that “the only options were to increase taxes or get more money from the state”, reflects the objective of this careless approach. Effectiveness and efficiency were options never placed


223

on the table. Proper management of money and programs takes a back seat to the black magic

mode of the education industry. Keeping it all in some black box allows educators the luxury of seeming almighty with little room to be questioned.

So often it is said in education the professionals (experts) need to make the decisions. The truth is, they have been making the education decisions for the last 30 years. Their poor decisions have put public education in the crapper.

We actually need people from outside education to enhance the vision. One aspect of this will probably be to build discipline. We need something more in education than the professionals who have evolved little beyond the spoiled juveniles they nurture.

The Case For Creativity

How do we even begin to do this? While creativity is lauded as the key to creating exceptional educators, it creates more bad than good. While actual creativity can provide educators with innovative approaches, the bastardized version embraced by education does the opposite.

Unfortunately, creativity as defined by today’s educators sabotages and feeds on the weakened system. Creativity has been molded to mean having a free hand; doing what they want to do, when they want to do it and having no responsibility. It means not being accountable for results. This creativity is contrary to discipline.

What this definition of creativity nurtures is laziness. It allows talents to become dulled and minds to see nothing to do but complain about the burdens placed upon them. It sees problems, not solutions, then wallows in them. It sees a two month summer vacation as time off they couldn’t live without rather than a privilege and a luxury.

While Michael Angelo was extremely creative, a lax atmosphere was not part of that creativity. He may have lived a better life than most in his time, because of the patronage of the rich and powerful, but he spent excruciating hours propped up in awkward positions processing his creativity onto the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It wasn’t all fun and games doing what you want. It was pushing and driving ahead. It was drilling the brush strokes home over and over. Repetitive motion was an integral part of his great works of art.

Drilling is a necessary part of education. It pounds the point home into the student’s brain. It also gives teachers that are less than exceptional a way to have good results in spite of some talent deficiencies. It allows students to attain positive results even without the best of pedagogical mentors.

While it would be nice if they were all the best of teachers, inspiring each student to heights of genius, such is not the case. More will be lackluster than not. It is more the case now than in the past, because we have set up a system that insures it. So setting up systems that might limit the opportunity for creativity is necessary. In the long run a disciplined, regimented system will serve the majority of students better. They will all be exposed to discipline. That alone cannot hurt. Educators will be exposed to discipline and perhaps become more creative from it, experiencing how discipline and creativity work hand in hand. They will see in practice how creativity without discipline is just a scam to shelter themselves from the real work.


224

The Map

All Programs would have to be analyzed for effectiveness and efficiency to be sure the public is getting its monies worth. Ineffective and inefficient programs would be made effective and efficient or be discontinued.

In the case of required academic courses, making them effective and efficient is the only alternative. The analysis of these programs would be kept historically and be continued on an ongoing basis. This information would be presented in a useful, informative and understandable format. Unlike it is presented today, so gaining knowledge from the data is practically impossible. It is recorded this way so that valid conclusions cannot be drawn.

Standard information would be required like students participating, overall cost, cost per students and the success for that program, average grades, failures, success in advanced courses this was a prerequisite to. This would include all courses, sports and extra curricular activities.

If there is one place data ought to be collected properly and presented understandably it is within our schools where the necessary subjects are being taught. It is particularly appropriate in New York State where students are expected to put to practical use the math and English they are being taught. If the educators are not able to do it, how will they ever teach the students to apply the subject matter?

Logical thought should be present in the schools where it needs to be taught. Applying learning to common sense is where education ought to be, not hiding behind a lack of common sense that leads to nothing.

Common sense would bring a different view to effectiveness and efficiency too. It would make the approach to budgets more results oriented. It would focus on the quality of education and learning rather than quantity.

No longer would just any experience be the goal. Experience without regard to effectiveness or efficiency; wasteful and immeasurable would not be financed by the community. Education’s practice of throwing the plate of spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks would not be pervasive.

The scientific method would be re-introduced replacing their spaghetti method.

Introduce Humility; Quashing the Entitlement and Elitist Attitudes

Where Do We Begin? Where do we begin this process after it seems we have taken years to destroy it?

School boards must become leadership groups instead of voters of money. They must become active participants instead of pompous policy people, pronouncing how to, when they have no idea or ability to make it happen. They must stop the educator’s habit of throwing money at problems, issues and programs without provisions for results. They must be able to analyze data and results. They must be able to lead the way to results.

They must not allow educators to blow smoke, perpetuating the problems that benefit and expand their profession. Real and accurate data and information must be used for decision making. When an argument is made for a certain action it must backed up intelligently by the administration. There is no place for the false marketing bravado you see from far too many boards and administrators. Minority views must be encouraged to challenge their ideas.


225

Intimidation must no longer a part of school governance and educational institutions. They must not be allowed to spread their vague realities as truth and must be made to defend those positions to see if they stand up to scrutiny. If they can’t they must go the way any defective product would and so should many of those snake oil salesman selling the product.

School Boards should be run more effectively and efficiently showing the ability to set and achieve important goals. Boards should establish calendars so the discussions of many items will be known well in advance so people could prepare for those discussions. This will enhance preparation.

Only necessary information to the decisions being made at particular meetings should be given out for that meeting. An excess of information should not be allowed to confuse or confound the issues at hand. At times this is intentional. On other occasions it is laziness or lack of preparation. In any case saturating the issues at hand with unnecessary information is counter productive to the tasks at hand. Other information may be sent segregated in other packets, but labeled as to the type of information it is.

Greater community participation in district committees, including board committees, will broaden the perspective. School boards get concentrated doses of the educator view. They get limited, controlled and contrived doses of the community view. Too often they are from community members screened to be acceptable to be heard; often referred to as those in the loop. The views they do not wish to hear, they screen and make sure they are not heard as often.

Greater community participation would enhance the communication of ideas presenting a broader perspective to the board. Greater opportunities for solutions will present themselves. We will see the only options aren’t increased taxes and more money from the state. It will become obvious enhanced effectiveness and efficiency are viable options to save money and expand programs.

Strengthening Education

Bringing back discipline to education and educators will not only insure education at least works at a minimum acceptable level, even under the worst conditions, but it stands to systematically improve education overall.

Once educators have the confidence they can follow the guidelines and succeed, it leaves the door opened for them to reach higher. As they witness their own growth through discipline, the can bring to bear their creativity in a disciplined manner, gradually and continually improving themselves and the systems.

Collecting the data, they can prove what they have done is working and can present it to help others. The ability to prove ideas and theories makes educators stronger and more confident. They no longer have to fake their way throwing the spaghetti at the wall. They can develop effective programs and methods implementing them gradually without throwing an entire school system into turmoil as was done with block scheduling at Horseheads.

This can teach them to pull together toward a common cause, the overall best education for the entire group. This means moving together toward a goal.

I remember being responsible for the recycling program at Cornell University in residence halls. I was apprehensive about volunteering to lead the program that had failed several times in the past. I wondered if there would really be support there to make it work.

As a facilities person, I saw custodial personnel going through futile motions as we


226

feigned a program for image sake. As we put the pieces in place, failure to commit came from all directions. While the program house Ecology supported the program wholeheartedly, other program directors saw it as your interest and didn’t necessarily see it as theirs. It was assumed I did it because I we very interested in recycling. They could not conceive that I committed myself to it because it was good for the department and the university.

The fact it saved money, conserved energy and put resources including people to use more efficiently and effectively meant nothing to them. They each had their own agenda, from racism and homophobia to the environment and assumed I must have mine. They didn’t seem able to form and agenda for the big picture and combine energy to solve problems. Too often it was their personal agenda that lead their professional agenda. Public schools operate much the same way as when a superintendent is so worried about parity pay wise with other superintendents, student education suffers.

This all or nothing method education has employed is because of the weakness nurtured into them. They do not want comparisons and accountability. This wastes time, money and leaves many students the victims of this uncontrolled experimentation. There school experience was often someone’s experiment, leaving them ill prepared for entrance into the real world.

The End