I know this was supposed to be the debut of my daughter’s take over for this blog but given the events of yesterday and the absolutely preposterous conclusions being put forth, I felt it not only necessary but an obligation to provide some clarity on what ACTUALLY happened.
First, I want to thank those of you who were courageous enough to approach me and solicit the truth of the matter. I appreciate your willingness to have the conversation, as oppose to riding by, peering over, and then posting ‘opinions’ based on misconceptions and other maledictions that have NOTHING to do with getting at the truth.
Apparently at 2:18 PM on yesterday (I shared a copy of the emailed communications received with those who stopped to inquire and were REALLY interested in the TRUTH) the lawyers sent an email to the Board Members expressing concerns about the legality of the meeting AND advising of potential culpability if attended.
NEITHER myself, Keisha nor Rasheed have been provide with an accessible email account, a Computer or a Blackberry from the district so all the communications regarding the lawyer’s advice was not received by us until approximately 4:05 PM once Wilma had read her email and contacted the three of us to share the chain of emails that had been initiated beginning at 2:18 PM and concluding at 3 PM on yesterday.
After being advised of the emails, I contacted Lisa directly and asked if she had a letter on letterhead, with inked signatures from the Commissioner and County Superintendent mandating this emergency meeting and confirming the legality of same. Her reply was no; she had been advised via several phone conversations throughout the week. I advised her that a situation as delicate as this required documentation, and that I must be able to read for myself, and further, that I could not in good consciousness attend this meeting, especially after having been advised of the legal concerns and not having an physical documentation to support her claim. I also advised that neither Wilma, Keisha nor Rasheed would be in attendance based on the same premise.
My position is, was and will ALWAYS be – That I WILL NOT move on any business of this Board until I HAVE THE NECESSARY information to make a wise, informed and appropriate decision. I have not come here to continue the business as usual and I will certainly NOT BE MOVED by ill advised maneuvers instigated by ulterior motives.
We are a body of NINE and at the VERY LEAST the 9 of us need to have a comfortable understanding AT EVERY JUNCTURE along the decision tree the pros and cons of the situation and make a decision based on Majority CONSENSUS. Not any ONE individual has the right to decide what is best for the Board, Our Schools or Our Children– if that were the case then the Board would be a body of a single member.
Be clear, neither I nor those of us who ran together are deterred from the business at hand,BUT we will DO THIS in DECENCY and in ORDER
or I will take NO PART IN IT (PERIOD)!
Progress With Purpose!
12 years ago
8 comments:
Documentation, documentation, documentation. Did I say enough times. As it is said on the street, CYA! Put it in writing. With the preponderance of legal issues at hand, a piece of paper in hand in better than a word in the bush. Renata and the GRAND SLAM Team are correct, everything MUST be done correctly, and the supplying of the required equipment to each Board member is paramount for communication. Siddeeq W. El-Amin
Thats Fine Renata but at least you and your mates could have done was come to the meeting early enough and have your discussion behind closed doors what you have done was make your President look like a fool you guys must show some solidarity, some unity you guys look like clowns keep this clown stuff up and the State will come in and take you all away be careful.
Swift Action? Not necessarily.
Question:
Do you think it is at all possible that LLL's apparent rush to possibly take action against DSGIII Friday was a move in anticipation of the announcement of the court's criticism of Christie's handling of matters?
Read about it here: http://www.njea.org/pdfs/2010EO7Ruling.pdf
http://www.njea.org/page.aspx?a=4145
The reason I pose this question is that if in fact Chris is considered our "heavy" (no pun intended, I assure you), and folks are relying upon his brand of justice to strike and deal that critical blow to our "villainous" CSA, then perhaps the logic was to move prior to widespread knowledge about Christie's potentially disempowering slap on the wrist that might render his perceived omnipotent wrath just a flash in the pan-ish, idle threat.
And The DOE, with all it's imposed and proposed remedial prescriptions and proscriptions like CAPA and QSAC, has already helped set the stage for our smoke and mirrors and window-dressing routines of not only Gallon, but various prior (and current-and NEW) administrators, as well.
Sadly, until all this lying, posturing, politicking, and malfeasance are seen for what they are and immediately eradicated, PPS continues to be faced with this great moral dilemma that precludes any substantial reform efforts in the form of applied competence, consistency, administrative validity, logistic fortitude, establishment and adherence to best practices, or any other critical elements needed for movement toward constructing (or REconstructing?) a viable, sustainable, comprehensive school system.
Waiting for or relying upon Christie or DOE/NJ should not be our plan of "action." The road to improvement and long lasting legitimacy as a district absolutely must be paved with bold, courageous and selfless intiative, collaboration and volunteerism on the part of brilliant individuals from all segments of our school and local communities.
We must support our BOE's efforts to establish a cohesiveness and the appearance of a unified governing body that represents US, as residents, and that has no conversation that ommits student service and achievement as the main purpose for those discussions. I suggest that the board begin with reviewing the Student Conduct Code, and begin to devise policy meant to ensure adherence and compliance, and then immediately further develop and pledge to follow one of their own!
Swift action? Decisive action with lasting and resounding effects are what we all need...and yes, right away.
Weapon-of-1
11:46AM -- Did you not read what I wrote. I said I spoke to Lisa BEFORE I decided that I wouldn't go to ask question, gain clarity and get documentation. She could not provide either so I TOLD her that the 4 of us were not coming. It is my understanding that the other members also advised Lisa they would not be in attendance as well.
Does the public understand that the Board can NOT meet to conduct an ILLEGAL meeting? Just show up is being party to the action. We can't. Nor can we meet just to talk about things in private. The meeting MUST FIRST be legal BEFORE any business and that IS ANY CONVERSATION, Consideration, Action or resolution either an emergency or otherwise can take place.
And I'm not going to play the go along to get along song either. Hasn't that been DONE long enough.
Unity means EVERYONE is working with the same information AND FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. The team is not even a week old and we have had no time to dialog about what we need as Board Members to be successful. What are DEAL BREAKERS and what is negotiable. IT had been 3 days, no equipment, no communication and no documentation. It would have been Clownish to move forward given all this LACK.
I'm NOT going to do things expeditiously just because if I don't have enough data to make a sound decision; it will be the RIGHT thing to do and the RIGHT WAY To do it.
I'm not going to remark on this any further.
I will address questions asked of me in PUBLIC concerning this matter as long as it is LEGAL to do so. So if you want the truth --- really --- then I'll see you on Tuesday.
Does the President of the School Board need "documentation" to call a meeting? Why are officials from the state advising the President via "telephone?" If those communications resulted in a "meeting being called," then those communications (with the state) should be made public. Right? Is it not a conflict for the Board attorney(s) to advise not attending a meeting that will discuss their work as school attorney? Why is Jerry Green's name all over some of this? Who will replace the attorneys?
These are some questions that, once answered, will shed a great deal of light on what is going on.
A meeting called by the Board president is a legal meeting, Renata, not an illegal meeting. Let's stop the games!
You and your colleagues could have shown your faces and explained why you weren't going to participate. Instead you hid. A threatening letter from a soon-to-be-former Board attorney shouldn't scare you.
No games here. Perhaps that is the problem. I'm NOT willing to play games.
I hope to see you tomorrow so we can have an honest conversation about what transpired and how to move forward.
Anything else...well...is disingenuous!
No further comments will be posted.
Please come out and share your concerns at the meeting.
Thanks!
Old Doc I respect your opinion --however to have show up would have made us complicit to any illegal preceedings. I could not risk that, nor should the public expect that of me.
Decency and Order and within the letter of the law that is MY Charge!
Post a Comment