The Group That Keeps on Giving...

We cannot (or at least should not) be at all surprised about the most recent headlines. And, unlike Ms. Centuolo – neither am I surprised at the intensity by which this community has objected to this latest display of self-indulging, self-serving dictates.

Had she (Centuolo) been listening over the past year she would have not only anticipated this trifling fiasco, but she would have addressed it last year when the issue first came across her desk. So how many letters does it take to "MOVE" the consciousness of our county and state educational watchdogs?

You cannot, that is to say YOU CAN NOT continue to disrespect, marginalize or disenfranchise a group of PROFESSIONALS without their being a colossal revolt. That is psychology and human nature 101!

And so now you have what we have -- An Investigation!

SOW and REAP!

Next...

I need a few points of clarity as regards this latest CN article. According to it the ladies now have “Supervisory” certificates as advised by PPS Administration (note who’s telling whom), however according to DSGIII on 11/17 and his disclosure of “the process” they would only qualify for a STANDARD certificate per the current certification process. Thus, they are qualified to TEACH in a CLASSROOM or take on a position in which supervisory certification was not required (i.e. their current modified positions). So – which is it? Somebody help a sister get all the facts here?

… you spin a web…you get all tangled up in it…and the wider you cast it the more you have to CONTROL the players, but really the web become more vulnerable to the winds of consciousness conjured up by the outcry of a people done unjustly and eventually one will turn and then another and another and another…

SOW and REAP!

And Finally...

So let’s fast forward to Jan. 5th’s meeting where the conversation will be about our HR Policy, and that’s nice, but I don’t want to be talked to [at] anymore. I want to have a true conversation. I want to be able to say, whoa wait – please explain what is meant by the following; for example in Policy #4211, Section B, specifically – “All candidates must have training and/or actual work experience in the vacant position, and an acceptable level of proficiency.” Please clarify “ACTUAL WORK EXPERIENCE and ACCEPTABLE LEVEL". (NOTE TO READERS –this policy is NOT listed for discussion, but I read it and I have some questions that directly relate to the most recent appointments. Now how in the world did this get left off of the list for discussion? Hmmm!) However, this may fall under the “…and any other policies that may be deemed necessary for review.” Point of personal privilege – this public would like to ask that HR Policy #4211 be added to the agenda for discussion.

For this meeting to really mean something I will need to be able to get a point by point explanation of what certain policy language means. After all – these are the rules of engagement that govern our elected and for-pay leadership right?

Let’s not do this half mast - -Okay—just to say “well we’ve reached out to the people.” I want an intellectually stimulating conversation with some solid answers and understanding so that when I leave there…I either understand clearly what these policies mean or we have scheduled another session to further explore and explain these policies. In fact, I would venture a guess that there is NO WAY one session could possibly resolve all and/or clarify the policies in scope, but we shall see.