Christmas can be a lovely time of year. I don’t look forward to it as much as I used to when I was young. I’ve become somewhat jaded I think. Maybe because Christmas has become so commercialized. Maybe because it’s been politicized. Or maybe, I’ve just become an old fart. Whatever!
Anyway, I intend, at least to the extent that I can in these trying times, to be of good cheer and to refrain from blogging until the beginning of the new year.
In 2011, BoE will begin a series of posts combining:
Teacher & Administrative Payroll
Additional FOIA Advice
School Board Governance
Finance and Budgets.
Should be fun.
In the mean time two things. First, if you are an school administrator, a teacher or a parent and you think things in EMSD#63 or your district are not quite right, you are not alone.
Did you know that EMSD#63 schools failed to make AYP this year – again
Not all FOIA requests require attorney assistance. You will see later in this posting that attorney assistance for FOIA requests generally represents a small part of this districts need for legal assistance. However, on May 5, 2010 something changed.
Background.
Apparently, the Administration panicked when presented with FOIA #100505-001, a standard request asking for documents relating to the one-year $108,000 unwritten, unpublicized, part-time employee/consultant/mentoring agreement between then recently retired Dr. Kathleen Williams and the District.
Based on EMSD#63’s 2009-2010 Budget documents, Dr. Williams final salary amount as Superintendent was $258,610 plus additional unpaid redeemable vacation days.
So what was the question that caused all this fuss?
The district responded with a large box full of printed emails. This 1,287 page “data bump” contained not only the email document sent or received by Dr. Williams while performing her contracted activities but also their attachments; some of them redundant and quite long. I can only guess why they chose to respond in this way, considering the District’s ability to copy and send similar documents in PDF format attached to one or more emails. A technique, by the way, they have successfully used often.
Note: I have split this file into four parts for your convenience.
The last 27 pages of the response contained the time-slip and payroll information. These facts were needed to put the rest of the documentation into perspective.
As you probably saw on pages 31-32 of 34, Dr. Williams was paid $900.00 for her 05/17/2010 efforts in assisting her former subordinates with their FOIA response.
Seeing, in my opinion, the over-the-top reaction and especially the extraordinary amount of Scariano, Himes and Petrarca attorney support service hours used to fulfill my request, I submitted another FOIA document to discover the actual legal fees associated with all my FOIA requests since 2004 and specifically the legal fees associated with FOIA #100505-001.
As you can see, the information presented included additional redacted attorney billings for services not related to FOIA requests. After a few minutes work, I created the report below. The report displays only the SH&P time and billed amounts associated with FOIA # 100505-001.
First, the SH&P bill associated with FOIA # 100505-001, when compared to other FOIA generated attorney fees was extraordinarily high. The reason being the enormous number of unnecessary and redundant documents scrutinized by SH&P. A bit of common-sense based triage would have gone a long way to minimize this problem.
Second, I don’t wish to be unreasonable here, but it seems to me that the Board and Administration needs to look in the mirror before they start whining about stakeholder generated FOIA requests. Had the Board acted in a transparent way, that is, HAD IT INFORMED THE PUBLIC OF IT’S INTENTION to hire Dr. Williams PRIOR TO ACTUALLY DOING IT and if it had done so IN PUBLIC AT THE BOARD MEETING AS A SEPERATE AGENDA ITEM, there would have been no surprise, no question and therefore no FOIA requests.
Dr. Williams, Dr. Clay and Ms. Glickman are veteran FOIA responders.
What were these people thinking?
Finally, many questions remain regarding the utilization of, or even the need for Dr. Williams consulting services.
I have no further comment or opinion on this subject at this time.
I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate the teachers and administrators of Melzer and Washington schools for their eight-year string of AYP wins.
You’ll notice I used a sports metaphor when describing these Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) outcomes. Personally I find a sports analogy appropriate because as most everyone in the education business knows, the goal of the AYP testing is not just about education, it’s now about winning, and schools and districts will do whatever it takes to win, to pass. Even the Illinois State Board of Education unwittingly eludes to AYP as sport with the following headline:
“October 29, 2010
Illinois students continue to make steady progress on state tests
Despite student improvement, fewer schools and districts making AYP as NCLB performance targets continue to increase
211schools and 56 districts beat the odds to make AYP this year, despite missing the target last year”
schools and 56 districts beat the odds to make AYP this year, despite missing the target last year”
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) as designed was never a good idea. Not to say that schools should not be held accountable for academic achievement and/or no standard of excellence should exist. However, no matter how bad it is, NCLB is the law. One result of NCLB and the need for meeting AYP, is that it has caused many honorable school district administrators to manipulate the system lest they risk their personal and districts reputation by being placed on their states watch list.
Does any of this diminish the Melzer and Washington achievement, absolutely not.
Based on multi-year results, District #63 still has a long way to go, having failed AYP four out of seven years. Will more real-estate tax money make the difference? I doubt it. I don’t believe that money is the issue. Maybe a change in Apollo and Gemini Leadership, along with the implementation of a fundamentals based teaching strategy might help though.
So once again, Kudo’s to Melzer and Washington Schools for beating the AYP odds eight-years running!
I recently noticed a series of policy changes to be voted on at the November 2010 School Board Meeting. Most of these changes effect board membership. There is however, a change to School Superintendent; Policy Number 3:40.
For our mutual convenience, I have copied the original policy and the proposed policy after changes. These documents were available through EMSD#63’s website but require work on your part. Too bad EMSD#63 administrators didn’t think enough of their Board and Stakeholders, for the sake of transparency, to do this analysis for us.
Note: Original Policy – Unchanged Policy – Policy Change
Subheading #1:Duties and Authority
Paragraph #1:
Original
Proposed Modification
The Superintendent is the District’s executive officer and is responsible for the administration and management of the District schools in accordance with Board of Education policies and directives, and State and federal law. The Superintendent is authorized to develop administrative procedures to implement Board of Education policy.
The Superintendent is the District’s executive officer and is responsible for the administration and management of the District schools in accordance with Board of Education policies and directives, and State and federal law. The Superintendent is authorized to develop administrative procedures and take other action as needed to implement Board policy and otherwise fulfill his or her responsibilities.
Paragraph #2:
Original
Proposed Modification
The Superintendent may delegate to other District staff members the exercise of any powers and the discharge of any duties imposed upon the Superintendent by Board of Education policies or by Board vote. The delegation of power or duty, however, shall not relieve the Superintendent of responsibility for the action that was delegated.
The Superintendent may delegate to other District staff members the exercise of any powers and the discharge of any duties imposed upon the Superintendent by Board of Education policies or by Board vote. The delegation of power or duty, however, shall not relieve the Superintendent of responsibility for the action that was delegated.
Subheading #2:Qualifications and Appointment
Paragraph #1:
Original
Proposed Modification
The Superintendent shall have the experience and the skills necessary to work effectively with the Board of Education, District employees, students, and the community. The Superintendent shall have a valid administrative certificate and superintendent’s endorsement issued by the State Certification Board.
The Superintendent must be of good character and of unquestionable morals and integrity. The Superintendent shall have the experience and the skills necessary to work effectively with the Board of Education, District employees, students, and the community. The Superintendent shall have a valid administrative certificate and superintendent’s endorsement issued by the State Certification Board.
Paragraph #2:
Original
Proposed Modification
When the office of the Superintendent becomes vacant, the Board of Education will conduct a search to find the most capable person for the position. Qualified staff members who apply for the position will be considered for the vacancy.
This paragraph has been removed.
Subheading #3:Evaluation
Paragraph #1:
Original
Proposed Modification
The Board of Education will evaluate the Superintendent’s performance and effectiveness according to the terms contained in the Superintendent’s employment agreement. A specific time should be designated for a formal evaluation session with all Board of Education members present. The evaluation should include a discussion of professional strengths as well as performance areas needing improvement.
The Board will evaluate, at least annually, the Superintendent’s performance and effectiveness, using standards and objectives developed by the Superintendent and Board that are consistent with the Board’s policies and the Superintendent’s contract. A specific time should be designated for a formal evaluation session with all Board members present. The evaluation should include a discussion of professional strengths as well as performance areas needing improvement.
Paragraph #2:
Original
Proposed Modification
No corresponding paragraph exists.
The Superintendent shall annually present evidence of professional growth through attendance at educational conferences, in-service training, or similar continuing education pursuits.
Subheading #5:Compensation and Benefits
Paragraph #1:
Original
Proposed Modification
The Board of Education and the Superintendent shall enter into a contract that conforms to this policy and State law. The contract shall govern the employment relationship between the Board of Education and the Superintendent.
The Board of Education and the Superintendent shall enter into a contract that conforms to this policy and State law. The contract shall govern the employment relationship between the Board of Education and the Superintendent. The terms of the Superintendent’s employment agreement, when in conflict with this policy, shall control.
Note: The original policy statement included “legal references, cross references, date of initial policy adoption and date of last revision. The dates of initial policy adoption and revision are missing in the revision.
Questions
Number
Question
1
Subheading #2:Qualifications and Appointment
Paragraph #1:
Who is to define what is “good character” or “unquestionable morals and integrity”? Who’s moral standard shall we use? Does this Board of Education have the moral or legal authority to perform this task? I think not!
What happens to the board/employee relationship if the definition of these standards change? Shall we have a gay Superintendent today but terminate her or him next year because the majority of the Board changes their definition of “good character” or “unquestionable morals and integrity”? How will this policy protect their individual rights?
Don’t even think of going there!
2
Subheading #2:Qualifications and Appointment
Paragraph #2:
If the Board of Education relinquishes it’s authority and responsibility to conduct a search for a new Superintendent, then who will?
Is this Board of Education suggesting that some unelected outside agency perform this duty?
If the Board of Education members believe themselves incapable or unwilling to perform their duty, they need to quit.
I reviewed their new proposed Policy # 2:20, “Powers and Duties of the Board of Education”.
The existing or proposed policy statements do not answer my question or relieve these Board Members of this important responsibility.
3
Subheading #3:Evaluation
Paragraph #2:
Since when does the Board of Education have the authority to demand of a Superintendent or any District employee, as part of his/her evaluation, present “evidence of professional growth”?
The examples provided in the policy: “attendance at educational conferences”, “in-service training or similar continuing education pursuits” are TAXPAYER PAIDACTIVITIES.
Shall we be sending our Superintendent to San Francisco, San Diego or Granada Spain again?
This policy statement assures never-ending taxpayer-funded trips for these questionable activities even as funds are in short supply.
And what happens when the money runs out? Will you still demand these activities or you ignore the policy or just change it again?
Lastly, the only clear evidence of professional growth worth evaluating is “on the playing field”. How has our district performed under the Superintendent’s leadership year-to-year?
4
Subheading #5:Compensation and Benefits
Paragraph #1:
Since when does the terms of the Superintendent’s employment agreement fall outside District Policy? What term(s) could possibly be in the current Superintendent’s contract to require this policy statement?
Went internet surfing up in Wausau, Wisconsin this morning. I now take a weekly peek at the Wausau Daily Herald. Wausau Wisconsin is a great little town in the North-Central part of the state. As you probably recall, Wausau recently hired EMSD#63’s retired Superintendent and part time District employee/consultant/mentor. I’m following the educational goings-on up there because I want to determine how the Wausau School District fares under their newly hired leader.
Superintendent only as good as the Board.
I have often said the responsibility for the success or failure of any school district lies directly with the district’s school board. If a board is unfocused and passive as I believe EMSD#63’s was during the Williams years, the result will likely be unsatisfactory.
What draws me to Wausau at this time is the chance to observe this same superintendent under three totally different Boards.
Before Dr. Williams became Superintendent of East Maine School District #63, she was Superintendent in Lawrence, Kansas and of course she’s now Superintendent Wausau School District. Both prior School Boards had their opportunity to get the best out of this administrator. In my opinion, both Boards blew it!
So I will continue to train a weather eye in the direction of Wausau and will comment on that situation if needed.
During my surf in “Packer Country” I stumbled onto the following blog post. I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. Mark Twain. This must read post gives me a bit of hope that things mightl turn out well. Maybe, just maybe, WSD’s Board will have the right kind of sustained informed public pressure to demand and receive the best Dr. Williams can give.
Back here in EMSD#63, we’ll just have to live with the same slavish Board till the next election.
Notice
We can’t wait for our next El Cid or Don Quixote or Superman…
Looking for a few good EMSD#63 citizens to run for the School Board.
No experience required, although some common sense, curiosity, integrity and leadership would be an improvement.
Membership on this Board could be the most important thing you can do to guarantee a good education for your child.
Email me at this site for assistance!
I have no further comment on this subject at this time.
Do you like games? How about match games or question and answer games?
Well I like games. Match games and question and answer games are two of my favorites.
I’ve developed a little Match and Q&A game for us to play together . It’s called Who’s Responsible?
Here’s how the game works. Over the next few months I’ll present information I have uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or email conversations. I will then ask, Who’s Responsible? For each correct answer you receive one point. At the end of the game, sometime early next year, you’ll be the winner.
Part One contains four warm-up questions and five Who’s Responsible questions.
So, get out a sheet of paper and a pencil or pen. After you’ve answered all the questions proceed to the Answers Table.
Let’s begin!
Question #1: What organization do the people in these pictures belong to?
Number
Picture
.
Number
.
1
.
Number
.
2
.
Number
.
3
.
Number
.
4
.
Number
.
5
.
Number
.
6
.
Number
.
7
I know, that was a trick question. Just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
Question #2: In picture number order, match the Board Member Name to the picture number.
Example: #1 = Joe Smith, #2 = Jane Doe, etc.
Names: Jane Wojtkiewicz, John Jekot, Walter Gluzkin, Janet Kaczkowski, Steven Levy, Tom Simmons, Sheila Urban.
Who are the Board Member(s) who do business with the District?
Question #9:
Who is the Board Member who received taxpayer funded pre-meeting dinners with Superintendent?
No cheating!
Answers Table
Answer #1:
EMSD#63 School Board
Answer #2:
#1, Walter Gluzkin; #2, Sheila Urban; #3, Steven Levy; #4, Jane Wojtkiewicz; #5, Tom Simmons; #6, John Jekot; #7, Kanet Kaczkowski
Answer #3:
#4, Jane Wojtkiewicz
Answer #4:
#3, Steven Levy (13 Years); #4, Jane Wojtkiewicz (13 Years); #6, John Jekot (11 Years)
Answer #5:
#1, Walter Gluzkin; #2, Sheila Urban; #3, Steven Levy; #4, Jane Wojtkiewicz; #5, Tom Simmons; #6, John Jekot; #7, Kanet Kaczkowski
Answer #6:
#3, Steven Levy; #4, Jane Wojtkiewicz; #6, John Jekot
Answer #7:
#1, Walter Gluzkin; #2, Sheila Urban; #3, Steven Levy; #4, Jane Wojtkiewicz; #5, Tom Simmons; #6, John Jekot; #7, Kanet Kaczkowski
Answer #8:
#1, Walter Gluzkin (WW Grainger); #5, Tom Simmons (A&B Bus); #6, John Jekot(Awards International)
Answer #9:
#4, Jane Wojtkiewicz
So, how did you do?
The first question was a gimme. The next three were warm-up questions designed to let you know who the characters are. The last five questions preview some of the subjects to be discussed in detail over the next few months.
In the mean time, the next time you see one of your representative on the street, at church, or at the mall or wherever it seems appropriate, ask him/her about these subjects. Ask about the contracts and the dinners on your tax dollar. Don’t try to ask them at a Board Meeting, the Board doesn’t have to answer you. Based on their rules, the Board doesn’t even have to listen to you. In the mean time, let’s see what we can do about finding replacements.
So let me help them along.
Notice
Looking for a few good EMSD#63 citizens to run for the School Board.
No experience required, although some common sense, curiosity, integrity and leadership would be an improvement.
Membership on this Board could be the most important thing you can do to guarantee a good education for your child.
Email me at this site for assistance!
I have no further comment on this subject at this time.
Madam President, was Dr. Clay truly the best of the litter or was your inability let go of Dr. Williams the reason behind your hiring decision?
I ask this question based on facts already delivered to me under FOIA. I ask this question based on blog posts and comments written by Dr. Clay and from emails between Dr. Clay and myself.
Not long ago I wrote a blog post titled: What was the EMSD#63 Board Thinking? When I wrote that piece I was still not sure of the Boards decision to support Dr. Clay’s style of leadership. His style being more open, direct and responsive than his predecessor. If you’ve read my postings and comments, you’ll have seen the positive remarks I have made in that regard. That said, I must return to the question.
What is the EMSD#63 Board Thinking?
Beside you Madam President, do any other members of the Board read what Dr. Clay writes? Let me give you an example of the latest Dr. Clay authored email to flow over my transom.
The first thing I noticed was the absence of your email address. The vast majority of Dr. Clay’s emails to me have included a “Cc: jwojtkiewicz@sd63board.org”.
Madam President, I think you should read this email closely. Remember, this is the guy you hired over 51 others.
Upon receipt of the letter, I invited several locally prominent stakeholders to tell me what they thought. Let me share one of those responses with you.
“Dear Ken,
I think it's begging.
Quite frankly, if you and your blog and your agenda are so very transparent in a way that is uncomplimentary of your character, as Dr. Clay more than intimates, then why is he pridefully begging you off the case? And doing so in a way that attempts to place you in a sort of catch-22; a private email, intended to remain private by express request, but suggesting you can't be trusted to honor his request while at the same time knowing, or he should know, the nature of your work IS to allow the public to view any and all District communications?
Again, quite frankly, if the District is a shining star of achievements with the amazing staff he is claiming, then he would not feel the need to spend one moment of his time refuting your accusations, nor addressing your complaints, nor begging you to back off.”
Lastly, someone needs to inform Superintendent Clay,who still thinks there were 100 candidates considered for the his position, that only 52 individuals submitted themselves for consideration.
Madam President, you’ve led this Board and District long enough. Besides, someone else on the Board deserves a chance to have those free (taxpayer-funded) pre-meeting dinners with the Superintendent.
So let me help you along.
Notice
Looking for a few good EMSD#63 citizens to run for the School Board.
No experience required, although some common sense, curiosity, integrity and leadership would be an improvement.
Membership on this Board could be the most important thing you can do to guarantee a good education for your child.
Email me at this site for assistance!
I have no further comment on this subject at this time.
Butterly on Education recently passed the 2,000 hit mark. Now for big bloggers, that’s nothing. But for my very limited market and for the short time (since April 2010) since my return, that’s pretty good. It means that you are interested in what goes on in EMSD#63 and it’s surrounding School Districts.
Thank you again! I’ll do the best I can to keep you informed, coming back and commenting.
I have just been informed by EMSD#63 Superintendent Dr. Scott Clay that the final version of the SY 2010-2011 School District Budget will not be presented to EMSD#63 Board Members and public until later this afternoon, tonight or tomorrow.
EMSD#63 Board should have received this report last week. Now it will have slightly more than 48 hours to review the significant changes referenced in Dr. Clay’s email.
There is no need to rush!
The EMSD#63 School Board Members have a responsibility to read and possibly question the changes and the impact these changes will have to EMSD#63’s original plan. That takes time. And there is time. This process does not have to be completed until October.
Do the right thing Jane, reschedule the vote!
Update – Aug. 31, 2010
I just received the following email from Dr. Clay regarding the “Final Budget.”
Well EMSD#63’s Board went ahead and passed the 115 page 2010-2011 Budget; a document Board members had only received scant hours before. One would have thought these Board Members were Congressmen. From Dr. Clay’s blog site came this announcement.
It appears that East Maine School District #63’s (EMSD#63) Board Members have removed their pictures, phone numbers and email address from the district website and have replaced it with this login.
Access Denied: You must login to access that page
SchoolCMS Login
Username:*
Password:*
I’m not sure why they would choose to remove themselves from the site, except this faint-hearted act does make it more difficult for taxpayers, constituents or stakeholders to express their views. So as a public service, I am displaying EMSD#63’s Board President and Vice President names and email addresses on this post.
It has been over 400 days since Dr. Kathleen Williams was engaged to perform post-superintendent services to this district. I have written about this story at some length numerously. Despite the many opportunities for former Superintendent Kathleen Williams, current Superintendent Scott Clay, Board President Jane Wojtkiewicz, or newly found "Voice of the Board” Steven Levy to openly and clearly discuss EMSD#63’s hush-hush Williams engagement decision, no one has came forward with an “official” story, until now.
So why is that you ask?
I’ll tell you why we didn’t officially hear about the $900 per day verbal agreement for employee/consulting/tutoring services for over 400 days; they didn’t want us to know. Period!
This Board and Administration, under Williams/Clay/Wojtkiewicz have always had a direct line to, and a working relationship with the local papers, and in the past have never withheld even the most non-essential information from “stakeholders” – when it suited their purpose. Even today, I can remember the article that appeared in the Pioneer Press touting the athletic prowess of former Superintendent Williams and her completion of a local triathlon.
District 63's Williams climbs her mountain, reaches life-long goal
Aug 12, 2004; JENNIFER JOHNSON ... East Maine School District 63 Superintendent Kathleen Williams spent one Sunday last month working toward a personal goal of completing the first triathlon of her life. Williams, 54, swam, biked and jogged her way to the finish line in the Reebok Women's Triathlon which drew approximately 2,400 women to downtown Naperville. "It was one of those mountains in life I am happy to have achieved," Williams said. The triathlon consisted of a half-mile swim, followed by a 14.5 mile ...”
We would still be unaware of this agreement except for Dr. Clay’s mistake. It was only while talking to Superintendent Clay about another subject that local reporter Tom Robb of the Journal & Topics stumbled upon the hitherto unknown agreement.
Only after this article appeared was any “outsider” aware of Williams return.
So much for EMSD#63 transparency!
EMSD#63’s Board and Administration, first under Williams/Wojtkiewicz and now under Clay/Wojtkiewicz could have spoken on this subject at any time. They did not!
But why now?
It appears to me that the reason was obvious. They weren’t controlling themessage. Some pesky blogger was.
And who advised employee/consultant/mentor Dr. Williams to send hundreds of emails totaling 1,314 pages to District EMSD#63 attorney's, Scariano, Himes and Petrarca for review, in response to FOIA #100505-001?
And then we have EMSD#63’s long time Board Member Mr. Steven Levy proposing the addition of two budget line items to track the costs of FOIA requests to the district, followed by the Board’s intention to publish those costs as part of each Board Minutes starting in August. What’s this! It’s like Blogo blaming the Feds for increasing his financial expenses. There would be little or no need for FOIA requests or the existence of this blog if transparency existed in East Maine School District #63.
As a response to this decision I have included the following request on each FOIA submission: “Also, please provide the date, employee name, employee title, hourly rate, and actual time spent providing facts for this FOIA request.” To this I receive the following answer: “The FOIA does not require us to answer questions or create documents. However, we will be including the total hours expended and the staff cost for the month on the board action at each monthly meeting.” How does the EMSD#63 intend to calculate these costs? Maybe their just going to make the numbers up like they do their budgets.
Just another example of Clay/Wojtkiewicz leadership!
