Thursday, March 31, 2005
Monrovia School Link ~ Number 115 ~ March 29, 2005
Shortly after the last newsletter went out, I got a note from School Board Member Clare Chesley, who asked if I could meet her and Board Member Bryan Wong. Gladly! I knew that they would not be able to talk specifically about the Jill Selak issue, but I figured we could dance around it a bit and maybe deal with a few related issues. And that's about what we did. But before we get started, I want to make a couple points. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I endorsed both Chesley and Wong in the last election, and, for that matter, I also endorsed Alex Zucco. I like and respect them. Second, I want to make clear that my vision of this newsletter is to be an open forum of news and opinion about the school board. Some of these opinions I agree with and some I disagree with, but I try to make it open and include comments from pretty much anybody who writes in. Oh, and some very good news about Clifton Middle school is buried down there.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
In this interview I wanted to examine a few charges I've heard leveled against the board and get Chesley and Wong to respond. So here are my questions and their answers:
The last newsletter mentioned an attorney for the district discussing the difference between an employee being let go "with cause" and "without cause." I asked about this as it relates to Jill Selak and they said that this is irrelevant because Selak resigned, so "with cause" or "without cause" does not apply.
What about the charge that the board did not meet with Selak?
They said that they have met with Selak on various occasions, but not regarding this situation. They said that to speak directly to Selak would mean ignoring the normal channel of authority by going around Superintendent Louise Taylor. They said Selak reports to Taylor, so Taylor needs to communicate with Selak.
In light of the uproar about Selak, are both of them confident they made the right decision? Would either of them change their vote about accepting Selak's resignation?
Both of them said they would vote exactly the same way.
It has been suggested that the board was misinformed about Selak. Are they confident of the information they received?
Bryan said that he "never acts on any issue unless he is confident about the information he has." He added that if board members have questions, they ask for clarification.
This question set Chesley off. She said some people have assumed that the board was ignorant of the situation, and was thus surprised at the intensity of parental reaction, kind of "like a deer in the headlights." She said that is not the case. "What makes you think I'm surprised?" she asked. "Did they think I didn't know about the principal's attributes? Ridiculous! Of course I know!" She said she knows what is going on not just through the district, but also through many contacts in the community.
I've heard from a couple sources that a meeting between Selak, Claire Chesley, and a few parents was abruptly called off by the district. Why?
Chesley said that it was called off at the district's lawyer's recommendation. She said the attorney said it would be improper for a board member and parents to meet with an employee. She said the lawyer said that the proper forum if Selak wants to communicate with the board is a regular, open meeting of the board.
I'm not sure I've heard the thought expressed, but I imagine some people may think that Selak might not be speaking up because the district does not want her to. I'm not exactly sure what the district could do to her if she did speak publicly - fire her? - but all the same, I wanted to find out. Would either Chesley or Wong have any objection to Selak speaking to the press?
Chesley said, "Jill Selak can do whatever she deems to be in her best interest. I have no issues with Mrs. Selak. I've always enjoyed my interactions with her. She's a positive person with a lot of strengths."
Wong said, "I don't have a problem with her going to the press. It's her choice. She can do whatever she wants to do and I would bear no ill will toward her if she did."
Okay, well how about this. Is it possible for Selak to give the board permission to speak about her situation?
Chesley said the district's attorney said that a person cannot give up their privacy rights. So, in short, no.
A few other points that Chesley and Wong wanted to make were these:
Chesley thinks that some parents are wrongly vilifying the superintendent. She said that while she thinks there are areas in which Taylor could improve, and points on which they disagree, Taylor is very capable, and is willing to be pushed and to push.
She also objected to charges that the board wasted money to bring in an attorney to the board meeting to answer questions. She said the attorney was only brought in because the board was being accused of not following the law. She said she felt kind of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
Okay, let's move on now to what Chesley and Wong particularly wanted to talk about - the future.
Chesley said the district is "leaping to the next level." Specifically, she said the district has just been notified that Clifton Middle School has been awarded the state's Distinguished School Award, and, she said, the high school is making progress, too.
Speaking of the future, would Chesley support parental involvement in selecting the new principal for Mayflower?
Chesley said she has fought for openness in the board meetings (and from the recent meetings I've seen I would say the meetings are a lot more open than they were in the past) and that she would want parental involvement in selecting a new principal for Mayflower. She said site councils have been involved in this process in the past, and she would push for even greater parental involvement in choosing the next principal.
And what about the recall petition? (I guess that falls under the "future" category.)
Obviously, neither Chesley or Wong approves of the recall attempt. Chesley asked what exactly the petitioneers hope to accomplish and Wong said he hopes people will "take a step back" and take a broader view of the situation. Chesley said it would take the signatures of 20 percent of the electorate (about 3,200 signatures) to get the measure on a ballot.
Okay, let me wrap this up with a few thoughts.
I still have no clue why Selak is leaving, but I have to think that when a group as varied as the five members of the school board unanimously agree to accept her resignation (whether prompted or not), there must be pretty good reasons. In talking to Chesley and Wong, I don't believe they acted in ignorance. That they remain adamant that their decision was the right one despite the furor it has caused further suggests to me that their decision was not for some casual reason. Further, I heard Chesley and Wong say that Jill Selak can say anything she pleases (and even if the board didn't want her to say anything, it doesn't have any power over her now that she's leaving), so if Selak wants to object to the resignation, she appears to be free to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn't done so publicly, if at all, and if she doesn't fight for it, I don't know why I should. If Selak would like to contact me and tell her side of the story, I'll be happy to print it, but without strong contrary evidence, I'm supporting the school board. I oppose any recall effort, and while I'll continue to print comments I get about the topic from whatever viewpoint, I kinda think we should move on.
A LETTER ~ The March 23rd School Board meeting was a bit long. Perhaps Joy Fisk dozed off a couple of times. Maybe that's why she missed some of what was said during that meeting. ~~ Many of the attendees of the board meeting were there to help honor Sylvia Carney and Jean Butler from Wild Rose Elementary and Laurie Hemingway and Bob Drew from Clifton Middle School. After the presentation of the awards by the Chamber of Commerce this group of supporters joined the homorees in the lobby. ~~ Ms. Chidester, the attorney who was retained by the MUSD, stated that the MUSD consistantly (at least for the past two years, which is all of the documentation that Ms. Chidester was asked to review) followed the rules, regulations and laws imposed by the California Education Code and the State of California regarding the matter of Administrative Personnel Evaluation/Release/Dismissal, including the Ed Code and State laws regarding confidentiality in personnel issues. She addressed the procedure for filing a complaint about the Superintendent or, for that matter, any MUSD employee. ~~ That procedure is the Uniform Complaint Policy, which allows anyone, staff, parent or community member, to file a complaint about a MUSD employee. I remember that when this question was answered by Ms. Chidester the person sitting behind me said "they are going to need a lot more of those forms", or words to that effect. About half of the questions directed to Ms. Chidester were unanswerable in a public forum as they delt with specific personnel issues. ~~ My comments were given after the comments of the five Mayflower parents and the first grade student from Mayflower. While I don't remember verbatim what I said (as I was speaking "off the cuff") the gist of it was that I don't always agree with the superintendent or the board and that I love Jill as principal of Mayflower (I am the parent of a former Mayflower student). Yes, I did say that my children have been through changes of principals at every school they have attended. I stated that in my job the people that I work with are facing life and death decisions. My patients trust that I am doing my job well. Should my immediate boss (who has the power to retain me in my position or let me go) dcide that I am no longer effective or serving the best interest of my patients, I don't expect her to go to the patients and discuss with them the specifics of my job evaluations or her decisions. By "bigger fish to fry" I meant that the District has severe budget issues that affect all of the schools in the district and that those concerns should be the focus of this massive use of manpower. ~~ After I addressed the board the group dressed in red (which did make up half of the audience) got up and left. Perhaps the commotion is why Joy didn't hear Dr. Carter say that the board could break confidentiality of personnel issues within the next five minutes if they wanted to, but the result would be the loss of millions of dollars in state funding. ~~ I decided that it was time for me to take my leave at this point. ~~ FYI, the vote on The Month of the Young Child was taken well before the end of the meeting. ~~ Perhaps a review of the KGEM tape is in order. ~~ June Richetts
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com
Shortly after the last newsletter went out, I got a note from School Board Member Clare Chesley, who asked if I could meet her and Board Member Bryan Wong. Gladly! I knew that they would not be able to talk specifically about the Jill Selak issue, but I figured we could dance around it a bit and maybe deal with a few related issues. And that's about what we did. But before we get started, I want to make a couple points. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I endorsed both Chesley and Wong in the last election, and, for that matter, I also endorsed Alex Zucco. I like and respect them. Second, I want to make clear that my vision of this newsletter is to be an open forum of news and opinion about the school board. Some of these opinions I agree with and some I disagree with, but I try to make it open and include comments from pretty much anybody who writes in. Oh, and some very good news about Clifton Middle school is buried down there.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
In this interview I wanted to examine a few charges I've heard leveled against the board and get Chesley and Wong to respond. So here are my questions and their answers:
The last newsletter mentioned an attorney for the district discussing the difference between an employee being let go "with cause" and "without cause." I asked about this as it relates to Jill Selak and they said that this is irrelevant because Selak resigned, so "with cause" or "without cause" does not apply.
What about the charge that the board did not meet with Selak?
They said that they have met with Selak on various occasions, but not regarding this situation. They said that to speak directly to Selak would mean ignoring the normal channel of authority by going around Superintendent Louise Taylor. They said Selak reports to Taylor, so Taylor needs to communicate with Selak.
In light of the uproar about Selak, are both of them confident they made the right decision? Would either of them change their vote about accepting Selak's resignation?
Both of them said they would vote exactly the same way.
It has been suggested that the board was misinformed about Selak. Are they confident of the information they received?
Bryan said that he "never acts on any issue unless he is confident about the information he has." He added that if board members have questions, they ask for clarification.
This question set Chesley off. She said some people have assumed that the board was ignorant of the situation, and was thus surprised at the intensity of parental reaction, kind of "like a deer in the headlights." She said that is not the case. "What makes you think I'm surprised?" she asked. "Did they think I didn't know about the principal's attributes? Ridiculous! Of course I know!" She said she knows what is going on not just through the district, but also through many contacts in the community.
I've heard from a couple sources that a meeting between Selak, Claire Chesley, and a few parents was abruptly called off by the district. Why?
Chesley said that it was called off at the district's lawyer's recommendation. She said the attorney said it would be improper for a board member and parents to meet with an employee. She said the lawyer said that the proper forum if Selak wants to communicate with the board is a regular, open meeting of the board.
I'm not sure I've heard the thought expressed, but I imagine some people may think that Selak might not be speaking up because the district does not want her to. I'm not exactly sure what the district could do to her if she did speak publicly - fire her? - but all the same, I wanted to find out. Would either Chesley or Wong have any objection to Selak speaking to the press?
Chesley said, "Jill Selak can do whatever she deems to be in her best interest. I have no issues with Mrs. Selak. I've always enjoyed my interactions with her. She's a positive person with a lot of strengths."
Wong said, "I don't have a problem with her going to the press. It's her choice. She can do whatever she wants to do and I would bear no ill will toward her if she did."
Okay, well how about this. Is it possible for Selak to give the board permission to speak about her situation?
Chesley said the district's attorney said that a person cannot give up their privacy rights. So, in short, no.
A few other points that Chesley and Wong wanted to make were these:
Chesley thinks that some parents are wrongly vilifying the superintendent. She said that while she thinks there are areas in which Taylor could improve, and points on which they disagree, Taylor is very capable, and is willing to be pushed and to push.
She also objected to charges that the board wasted money to bring in an attorney to the board meeting to answer questions. She said the attorney was only brought in because the board was being accused of not following the law. She said she felt kind of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
Okay, let's move on now to what Chesley and Wong particularly wanted to talk about - the future.
Chesley said the district is "leaping to the next level." Specifically, she said the district has just been notified that Clifton Middle School has been awarded the state's Distinguished School Award, and, she said, the high school is making progress, too.
Speaking of the future, would Chesley support parental involvement in selecting the new principal for Mayflower?
Chesley said she has fought for openness in the board meetings (and from the recent meetings I've seen I would say the meetings are a lot more open than they were in the past) and that she would want parental involvement in selecting a new principal for Mayflower. She said site councils have been involved in this process in the past, and she would push for even greater parental involvement in choosing the next principal.
And what about the recall petition? (I guess that falls under the "future" category.)
Obviously, neither Chesley or Wong approves of the recall attempt. Chesley asked what exactly the petitioneers hope to accomplish and Wong said he hopes people will "take a step back" and take a broader view of the situation. Chesley said it would take the signatures of 20 percent of the electorate (about 3,200 signatures) to get the measure on a ballot.
Okay, let me wrap this up with a few thoughts.
I still have no clue why Selak is leaving, but I have to think that when a group as varied as the five members of the school board unanimously agree to accept her resignation (whether prompted or not), there must be pretty good reasons. In talking to Chesley and Wong, I don't believe they acted in ignorance. That they remain adamant that their decision was the right one despite the furor it has caused further suggests to me that their decision was not for some casual reason. Further, I heard Chesley and Wong say that Jill Selak can say anything she pleases (and even if the board didn't want her to say anything, it doesn't have any power over her now that she's leaving), so if Selak wants to object to the resignation, she appears to be free to do so. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn't done so publicly, if at all, and if she doesn't fight for it, I don't know why I should. If Selak would like to contact me and tell her side of the story, I'll be happy to print it, but without strong contrary evidence, I'm supporting the school board. I oppose any recall effort, and while I'll continue to print comments I get about the topic from whatever viewpoint, I kinda think we should move on.
A LETTER ~ The March 23rd School Board meeting was a bit long. Perhaps Joy Fisk dozed off a couple of times. Maybe that's why she missed some of what was said during that meeting. ~~ Many of the attendees of the board meeting were there to help honor Sylvia Carney and Jean Butler from Wild Rose Elementary and Laurie Hemingway and Bob Drew from Clifton Middle School. After the presentation of the awards by the Chamber of Commerce this group of supporters joined the homorees in the lobby. ~~ Ms. Chidester, the attorney who was retained by the MUSD, stated that the MUSD consistantly (at least for the past two years, which is all of the documentation that Ms. Chidester was asked to review) followed the rules, regulations and laws imposed by the California Education Code and the State of California regarding the matter of Administrative Personnel Evaluation/Release/Dismissal, including the Ed Code and State laws regarding confidentiality in personnel issues. She addressed the procedure for filing a complaint about the Superintendent or, for that matter, any MUSD employee. ~~ That procedure is the Uniform Complaint Policy, which allows anyone, staff, parent or community member, to file a complaint about a MUSD employee. I remember that when this question was answered by Ms. Chidester the person sitting behind me said "they are going to need a lot more of those forms", or words to that effect. About half of the questions directed to Ms. Chidester were unanswerable in a public forum as they delt with specific personnel issues. ~~ My comments were given after the comments of the five Mayflower parents and the first grade student from Mayflower. While I don't remember verbatim what I said (as I was speaking "off the cuff") the gist of it was that I don't always agree with the superintendent or the board and that I love Jill as principal of Mayflower (I am the parent of a former Mayflower student). Yes, I did say that my children have been through changes of principals at every school they have attended. I stated that in my job the people that I work with are facing life and death decisions. My patients trust that I am doing my job well. Should my immediate boss (who has the power to retain me in my position or let me go) dcide that I am no longer effective or serving the best interest of my patients, I don't expect her to go to the patients and discuss with them the specifics of my job evaluations or her decisions. By "bigger fish to fry" I meant that the District has severe budget issues that affect all of the schools in the district and that those concerns should be the focus of this massive use of manpower. ~~ After I addressed the board the group dressed in red (which did make up half of the audience) got up and left. Perhaps the commotion is why Joy didn't hear Dr. Carter say that the board could break confidentiality of personnel issues within the next five minutes if they wanted to, but the result would be the loss of millions of dollars in state funding. ~~ I decided that it was time for me to take my leave at this point. ~~ FYI, the vote on The Month of the Young Child was taken well before the end of the meeting. ~~ Perhaps a review of the KGEM tape is in order. ~~ June Richetts
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com
Comments:
Post a Comment
