Enemies all around us

Trying to make advances in education in New Paltz is about as futile as the attempts of the Danaïdes to fill a tub with water to wash their sins away.  In fact, as this week's budget vote shows, even trying to minimize the cuts to education is mostly unacceptable.

Putting it another way, trying to ensure that New Paltz remains affordable for the people who live here and wish to use real estate as an investment in this community is damned near impossible.  In fact, as this week's budget vote shows, we very nearly saw an unacceptably large tax hike get shoved down our throats.

Two sides of the same coin, and it's the same old coin, despite the extra wrinkles thrown in by the tax cap.  Education is part of the long-term planning we make as a society, but that doesn't mean diddly to someone who is fighting to fend off foreclosure or only bought that house because they were told that rental income is "passive" in some alternate reality.

It's a crappy system.  New York State has abdicated its obligation under its own constitution to provide education, shifting it, as our spineless legislators always do, onto the local municipalities and taxpayers.  But even if the state did its job, that would not make the ballooning costs magically stop ballooning.

This anti-budget message went viral on Facebook.

What I think I'm seeing is related to the so-called anti-intellectualism movement, and might actually help me explain why that idea isn't entirely without merit.

This week's budget proposal exceeded the tax cap, and only 60% of those bold budgets got passed statewide, while something near 99% of the budgets within the cap requirements were approved.  Just as they did with the middle school renovation, the board worked really hard on explaining why they needed this money, how important it is, and what bad things would happen if this didn't pass.

And that's where the problem begins.  I don't think people are actually opposed to education, nor do I think people are really offended by intellectual pursuits, but boy do they hate snobbery.

Now I'm more educated that many Americans, and much less so than many New Paltz residents, and from where I stand it seems that each degree a person earns beyond the first has a chance of injecting some snobbery into their attitude.  The way it's expressed is through an unspoken message, "My idea is correct.  I know more than you do about this subject, so obviously if you disagree with me it's because you don't understand what I am saying.  There is no valid reason for you to disagree other than your own ignorance.  I shall try to explain this in small words your uneducated brain can understand, because once you do you will bow to my superior intellect."

The problem is, there are other points of view, and this approach dismisses those views as ignorant.  Given the amount of time that the board spends researching these subjects, it's understandable that they and their supporters (which include me) believe that this budget was the best possible option.  But to approach the problem as if you already have dismissed all of the arguments and this should be a foregone conclusion forgets one fact:

Their vote does not depend upon your knowledge.

Do I think it's sad that Highland's budget was defeated by people who can't spell?  I sure do.  But it wasn't defeated by people without education, it was defeated by people who vote.  The voters have the power to deny you what you want, and as Robert McNamara notes in The Fog of War, the best way to deal with that dynamic is to empathize with the enemy.  (I'm using "enemy" loosely here to describe the people who have the power to deny, in this case the school district voters.)

How much empathy was shown for the naysayers?  Did we:

• imagine the fear of someone on a fixed income who sees a tax increase which is twice the Social Security hike for the year?
• ask for their help in lobbying for a new way to fund education?
• talk to them about why we insist on negotiating multi-year contracts with the unions, which tie the hands of future boards by making up to 75% of the school budget contractual and thus untouchable?
• work with them to find ways the community can help make up for the quality programs that are being cut?

New Paltz sees itself as a battleground, and thus it is.  There will always be people without children living here, and people who only use properties to make money, and their views will always be exercised in the voting booth.  It may not be fair that this is the only local budget subject to such scrutiny, it's the system until we can get it changed, so maybe it's time to start empathizing with the enemy rather than just drawing new battle lines.

New Paltz school land vote

Today, New Paltz voters get a chance to decide if the schools will be able to buy some land.  Community sentiment seems largely against the project, and some of the details I've learned today give me pause, while others really clear things up in my mind.

First, the bad.  Whether the reasons for speed are good ones or not, this thing is moving too fast for people to digest it.  Yes, most people prefer to vote uninformed, but they rely on those few who pay attention, and many of those are voting no because they don't know enough.

A real estate broker I know wonders about the soil test on this parcel, which was an orchard, I believe.  Normally, she tells me, soil tests happen before the contract is signed, but in this case it's to be part of the contract.  That makes her nervous, and me too.  I don't know what happens if it turns out to be contaminated.

Another of my friends, a student at the high school, pondered instead using the capital reserve fund for middle school renovations.  I think I can answer that, but first let me explain where this money is coming from.

The capital reserve fund was authorized by voters in 2005 -- the board can sock away up to $5 million for projects like renovating the middle school, although the most they've saved is $1.2 million.  This is money not used in past years, for things like snow plowing, which the voters told them it's okay to save, rather than giving back to us.  In my estimation, this is democratic (we voted), transparent (we know what it can be used for), and conservative (they can eliminate borrowing costs by spending money they have rather than money they don't have).

So why not the middle school?  I'm thinking they don't have enough money to begin to fix those problems, and they're looking to a future without that building.  I don't know that I like that attitude, but the community has spoken pretty loudly in the past.

The rationale behind the land grab is to allow for consolidation, building new near Lenape and pulling back from the middle school.  It could make for a leaner district.  Voting no won't get that money back, because we already told them they could take it.  I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to vote no, but that's not one of them.

Are you voting April 10?

The school district's special vote to allow the purchase of land is coming up.  I think the paper has done a pretty good job of laying out the reasons why they want to spend this money in this way right now, but from the letters and what people are telling me, either people aren't understanding or they really just don't agree.

From what I understand, this land purchase would be made with money the district already has, but can't use -- it's a reserved fund balance.  The first question on the ballot will be to take care of the accounting, and allow the money to be used on real estate.  The second actually gives them the green light to do it.

The board believes that this is the best way to give the community what it wants.  More land will allow the district to consolidate by adding buildings there, replacing the decrepit middle school.  That addresses the safety concerns of that old building, or at least opens the door to doing so, and it does it with money that can't be used to save teaching jobs or programs.

I think this is about communication more than anything else.  I don't think this is a case of the board overreaching, but they are definitely hellbent to go through with this despite the strong negative reaction provided in their survey.  Yes, a lot of land will come off the tax rolls.  Down the line, maybe that prime middle school property will be put back on.

What do you think the tax consequences will be in the short and long runs?  If you're voting, would you be willing to share your reasons for your vote?

We are the 99%, at least in spirit

At the New Paltz School Board meeting this week, there was a report by a representative from Alliance for Quality Education, a group focused on restoring millions of dollars' worth of state aid to local schools, and to make sure that the aid is distributed equitably.

I heard AQE's director, Billy Easton, speak at an event at Rondout Valley High School a few weeks ago.  He was on fire as he showed how the cuts disproportionately harm the poorest districts.  In fact, in the latest round of state aid shuffling, Rondout Valley is losing another half-million dollars.

Listening to the AQE rep speaking in New Paltz, I was amazed by the difference.  The fellow was hesitant and apologetic as he explained that our district isn't really one of the ones that AQE's mission will help.  Finally, Superintendent Maria Rice said it for him.

"We're a wealthy district according to state standards," she said.

Sure enough, while Rondout Valley lost half a million, board members here reported that the new state aid allocation will have them "about even," in Kt Tobin's words.

We may well feel like we're part of the subjugated majority in New Paltz, but there's at least one group out there which thinks we get too big a handout, and wants to take some away.

Busing a rhyme

I can't really weigh in on the question of transporting our kids to school without admitting that I have already been hammered for wanting to "hammer on" this issue.  That was the phrase that I used when I I sent a Facebook message on the subject to the three school board members who are my friends there (luckily another board member quietly defriended me after my call for transparency during his last reelection campaign; I'd hate to risk a violation of the open meetings law), and one of those friends took exception to the phrase.

I'm not a musician, but I think that "hammer on" is a way to create a sustained note through continuous pressure on a guitar string.  My board member friend, I fear, anticipated an approach much more aggressive and nasty.  I can't say I can blame anyone on the board for such a reaction; in New Paltz it's rare to find someone who is willing to debate using truth and logic instead of passion and half-truths.  In addition, I'm no stranger to passionately arguing for a position I care about.  Hopefully I've learned my lesson.

Now, about those school buses

I've been following a local school bus strike threat for the Shawangunk Journal, and it's quite amazing what I have learned.  New Paltz drivers start at $22.90 an hour, while Rondout Valley pays about $23 an hour for its bus contractor.  RV's drivers are considering a strike because they make so little, but as it stands now the districts which privately contract are paying a rate per hour that is comparable to our local driver hourly rate.

How much should busing really cost?

Keep in mind, the hourly rate in New Paltz doesn't include sick time, vacation, retirement, vehicle procurement or maintenance.  We voted down a new school bus proposal just last year, and privatizing busing is one of many options the board is going to consider to resolve the insane budgeting problems they face.

I've had people tell me that they would not feel comfortable with contract drivers. This is an emotional argument, and I sincerely hope no board member dares consider it.  I want facts, and only facts, to make this decision.  Facts might include:

• The way that private companies are regulated by the state in comparison to how the district is regulated
• Documented records of safety and screwups.
• A comparison of how often private companies need to send in a substitute unfamiliar with the route versus how often the district needs to do so.
• An analysis of transportation times, both overall and with a substitute at the wheel.
• A comparison of background check requirements.

Starting now, and going forward, I am going to sound a note for privatizing our busing.  Unless strong evidence is presented to show that we really need to be spending three, four, or more times what neighboring districts do for their busing (Rondout Valley privatized 19 years ago, and so far their biggest problem is the threat that three drivers will strike), I am going to continue to keep hammering on that note until I am heard.  Short of consolidating districts (which is outside the scope of this post), I can see no more effective way to save tons of money with very little downside.

Zero tolerance . . . policy or tradition?

Some interesting developments unfolded in the halls of New Paltz High School this week.  Several students were caught violating school policy on drugs, and the district's "zero tolerance policy" rolled into action, with the principal meting out multi-day out-of-school suspensions pending hearings.  Despite the fact that the case is swathed in rumor and cloaked in the secrecy necessary for dealing with kids, it's an opportunity to see how the school's code of conduct and due process work.

By cobbling together scant official reports with the existing rumor mill and some knowledgeable sources, I pulled together some details of the case.  Students generally believe that a dozen students were involved, but none of those questioned were able to provide more than one name.  The official line from superintendent Maria Rice was that the number I had heard was grossly exaggerated, and a source close to the investigation claimed that it was really only five students.  I spoke to the one kid whose name the other students knew, and he confirmed that the accusation was of selling marijuana (and, I'm going to guess, possession).  I was able to gather very little information about the other cases, but it appears that one of the other students may have been caught with a weapon (brass knuckles) and turned over the alleged drug dealer to cop a plea.

Now the fun begins.  At the beginning of the school year the board said that they were going to be looking at the "zero tolerance policy."  I reviewed the code with a board member, looking for a quote about that member's position on zero tolerance.  It took some time for the member to wade through the code of conduct, which didn't surprise me, but what did was what we didn't find . . . zero tolerance.

Wikipedia says that "zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances."  However, the district's code provides for a wide range of consequences for drug charges, ranging from an oral warning to permanent suspension from school.  (This is the same range of punishment that can be meted out for lying, possessing a cell phone or iPod on school premises, and using an obscene gesture.)  The superintendent is explicitly given the right to consider "extenuating circumstances" and other information when deciding on or approving of a disciplinary action.

With the board member befuddled, I contacted the district office to ask exactly where this "zero tolerance policy" exists.  I got a request to FOIL the info, and I'm considering exactly what to ask for.

The language of discipline in schools has changed.  OSS (out-of-school suspension) was not in my vocabulary as a kid - you were suspended, or you were not.  It was always in school.  If a kid got kicked out, we called it "expelled," and I think it happened once in my school years.  Now we have OSS and ISS, and OSS is considered a viable option.  Let's see how that works, shall we?

This kid is out of school until he gets a hearing in a week or so.  He will get maybe two hours of tutoring a day, and unless his parents don't work, he will be otherwise unsupervised.  So by sending him home, the schools have committed to spending money on a tutor above and beyond what his teachers already cost, right?  And since he's accused of breaking the law, I assume that there is some possibility that in his free time he will roam the community and perhaps do something that will require police activity - also paid for by my tax dollars.  If the student was remanded to the school as a non-dangerous but disruptive student, he could get his work sent to him all day long and require neither tutors, nor police.

Sounds to me like the school district is foisting off its problems on the rest of us.  I've talked about the problems with OSS before, and I think it needs to change.  If a kid is a danger to the schools he needs to be out of there - but that probably means the police need to be involved.  I doubt there is a case where the kid is really a danger and some kind of professional intervention (mental health, police, whatever) is not needed.  Why can't you keep the rest of these kids in the building?  Why are they being sent home?  It doesn't appear to be mandated by law, and so far I can't find the actual "zero intelligence tolerance policy" which is taking things out of their hands . . . so why is the school washing its hands and putting the problem back in our laps?

Considering the number of administrators making more than $150,000 a year, I think they can find a way to do just that.  We're paying them a lot, and I would like to see them use those well-paid brains to come up with a better idea, like keeping kids in school.

Kerrses!

Last night's school board meeting, and the subsequent press coverage, were certainly entertaining.  I avoided taking a position until last night; the fact that I know Mr. Kerr made me want take the time to gather the facts so that I could be sure that our relationship (which I would characterize as an acquaintanceship, albeit a strong enough one that he offered me a ride recently) did not bias my view.

Two out of three reporters have filed their stories; the only one missing is for our local weekly paper, which comes out a day before its publication date; that story should be available Wednesday next in print.  The articles which are out, one in the Times Herald Record and the other in the Daily Freeman, didn't include my comments, so I will reproduce them here, with helpful links that I couldn't figure out how to include orally:

My comments this evening are focused on the Code of Conduct, and the "zero tolerance" policy that underlies it. The district's code of conduct in its present form makes it theoretically possible for a student to receive out-of-school suspension for using an iPod, and for a number of other offenses including serious ones like drug dealing and bullying.

In today's society, where almost all adults must work to keep their households afloat, OSS is more of a reward than a punishment, and should be reserved for those rare and extreme cases where keeping a child in school poses a danger.  In fact, a few months ago a New Paltz high school student told me that yes, he has deliberately broken rules to earn himself a three-day vacation from school.

Instead of sending kids home where they will be unsupervised, I suggest we revamp the code of conduct to keep most student offenders in the building.  There they can be supervised, and held accountable for their assignments. The district could even explore a community-service component, demanding that troublemakers give back to make up for their disruption.  OSS is an abdication of responsibility which simply transfers a problem out the school's influence. It's one of the strongest reasons why the zero-tolerance policy is ineffective.

I would like to see these changes take place from the top down, starting with the Board itself.  Many people in this room feel that Don Kerr should not be afforded the luxury of being deemed innocent until proven guilty.  If the Board agrees with this position, then Mr. Kerr's punishment should send a strong message. Don't go easy on him - make him continue in the thankless job of Board President, and demand that he give back to this community by paying for all the necessary training out of his own pocket.  After he's been President for a year, I have no doubt that Mr. Kerr will see the error of his ways.

It was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but it was completely true.  The Code of Conduct sucks, and needs a revamp as I've been saying for months (and will be getting one this year regardless).  The President job also sucks, even when the man in the job doesn't have his own deeds haunting him.  He has to set the agenda, run the meeting, and take it on the chin for every action the school does and does not take.  There are two other members who have been President before, and three who according to past practice are unqualified because they have never served as VP or President.  Neither Patrick Rausch nor Bob Rich wanted the job.  That's because they know it's a beast and a half, and takes countless hours of unpaid time to do well.  And that remark about the training? Well, Don's already paying for it out of his own pocket, because they didn't budget for it.

There was over an hour of public comment, and I can't fault either reporter for redacting my viewpoint, but there were other omissions that I think were more glaring:

• Justin Holmes and several others suggested that this is an opportunity to review our society's inconsistent messages about marijuana use.  His partner Amanda Catherine Stauble probably did the best job of it, however; she explained how as a DARE graduate she watched as several friends discovered that pot isn't as bad as the program claims, and how those lies lead kids into falsely believing harder drugs are no big deal.
• David Dukler, former school board member, pointed out the biased editorial practices of the New Paltz Times regarding coverage of school board members and candidates. His comments did a much better job than I have of pointing out how rampant yellow journalism is in this community.  Not a surprise that this was ignored; the Record took my inquiries into Edgar Rodriguez' lawsuit against the district and turned it into an article on Steve Greenfield, who wasn't even running. Gotta protect your own, right?
• There are rumblings of a time- and money-wasting legal action to get Don Kerr to resign.  I say it's a waste because there's no legal recourse, period.  If this was a concern, it should have been addressed when he ran for reelection.  Public comment is appropriate, but please don't piddle away my tax dollars dragging this out any longer.

I would like to address Ed Burke specifically, since he does occasionally comment here.  Folks referred to this as a "witch hunt" because there are people who are using this incident to attack Don, even though they don't particularly care about this issue.  I don't believe that describes you, but please don't be naive.  One of Don's most outspoken critics told me about his own pot use in the parking lot, and the room was packed with people who feel that removing Don from this position will help them keep their unreported cash rents in their pockets rather than paying their share for our kids' education.  It is possible that there are people who agree with you for reasons other than those they state.  It's Don's fault he gave them the ammunition, but that doesn't mean everyone has the kids' best interests at heart.

Note: per this blog's code of conduct I have attempted to contact each person named in this post.  I have not yet obtained email addresses for Patrick Rausch, Bob Rich, or Ed Burke.

Tale of Two Court Cases

I've been watching the development of Don Kerr's plight with interest.  Much like Bill Clinton, we knew all about Don's legal wranglings when we reelected him in 2009, but the New Paltz Times feature article update on his case has brought a lot of outrage against him to the forefront.  The timing of that article confused me, but the irony of it amused me.  The reactions of the local citizenry has been even more instructive.

Timing is everything
I've always been annoyed by the print world's habit of dating publications in a way that didn't seem to be in synch with the real world.  I understand that you're writing in advance of publication dates, but the science and business of publishing makes it possible to hit the newsstands on the same date listed on your front page.  Our local paper consistently shows up on Wednesday, but has a Thursday publication date.  Until now it was only an annoyance to a pretty pedantic fellow (your truly), but in this case it made them look downright silly.

The paper with the Thursday date gave an update on Don's legal case on Wednesday, only a few hours before the case was closed.  I have to assume that the editor and publisher didn't want to look like asses, so they obviously didn't know about that court date.  The last court date was well over a month ago.  Why did they run a story when they did?

Drawing the line between public and private
When his case first hit the news, Don Kerr claimed that elected officials have no expectation of privacy.  I would say that's true to some extent - if it's said in public or in the public record then no, no privacy.  Whatever the editorial decision drove the comical timing of the original article, covering the story was fair game.  In fact, I would have to say that it's appropriate to cover the publicly- available portion of any relevant court case pertaining to an elected official.  Probably not divorces, estates and the like, but cases which are relevant.  Don was accused of using a substance disallowed by the district he represents, so it's relevant.  Edgar Rodriguez was suing the district he represents, so it was also relevant.  Why one was covered and the other not is quite beyond my understanding.  I can guess, but you can be sure that the guess foremost on my mind would be considered libelous by the owner of Ulster Publishing.

Hypocrisy and outrage
I've been watching my Facebook feed and I've seen a lot of outrage over the Kerr case.  One person in particular was quite strident, so I reached out to her.  She had privately taken me to task for covering the Rodriguez case when That Paper would not, because she believed I was being overly intrusive by obtaining publicly-available court documents in that case.  I'm afraid my message to her (redacted below to remove personally-identifying information) was a bit strongly-worded:

I believe you're a hypocrite and I'd like to give you the chance to prove me wrong.

I would like to invite you to make a guest post on the New Paltz Gadfly regarding your feelings about Don Kerr. Be aware that I will be commenting to compare and contrast your reaction to this case with your reaction to my posts about Edgar Rodriguez.

I welcome the opportunity to a lively and public debate with someone who sees things differently than I, and I expect that the local court of public opinion will weigh in heartily.

How about it? Care to take a more visible stab at the Kerr situation?

Not surprisingly, she declined the challenge.   Apparently when Edgar is in court suing the district it's none of our business, but when Don gets pulled over for doing something that could send a mixed message it is.  I'd still like to invite someone to post on Don's situation and how they feel about it - even if that person isn't actually a hypocrite.  Agree or disagree, I will treat you with courtesy and only attack your ideas, not you personally.  I know that asking people not to resort to name-calling renders a lot of people ineligible, but I'm hoping someone can find intelligent ways to debate the topic, rather than taking cheap shots like calling Don a "lovable oaf."  Violence may be the first refuge of the incompetent, but name-calling is the first refuge of the incompetent pacifist.

Positive signs on the School Board
Edgar Rodriguez voted against Don Kerr's presidency because he thinks Don's approach to drug problems doesn't acknowledge the realities of addiction.  I didn't see that it made it to That Paper, but Don is also interested in addressing the over-the-top zero tolerance policy.  I like this; the current code of conduct rewards students for bad behavior by sending them home.  This means kids with drug problems and criminal proclivities have plenty of free time to pursue those interests, and the district washes its hands of the problem.

I fully support Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Kerr in their fight to create a rational disciplinary policy for the New Paltz Central School District.

Bullet (vote) for my BOE candidate

After getting a lot of insight about my Board of Ed endorsements, and listening more to the buzz leading up to the election, I'm going to have to take a bullet . . . vote for my preferred candidate, Dominick Profaci.

I'm not going to vote for Mary Ann Tozzi, primarily because she's unwilling to look at administrative salaries like Maria Rice's for cost savings.  I applaud Ms. Rice for foregoing a pay increase, and I do not blame her or any of her incredible staff for taking the highest salary they can negotiate.  However, even asking these good people to squeak by on a mere $150,000 a year could go a long way to finding the money for maybe a dozen teachers.

My neutral assessment of Bob Rich is also shakier, but the reasons why are entirely hearsay and inappropriate to share at this time.

One gadfly's endorsements for New Paltz school board

Since I've been paying attention to how transparent the candidates have been during this School Board election, I almost didn't stop to consider which candidates I want to vote for.  I am not a big fan of politics, but since I've been vocal about how consistently bad the coverage of this race has been, I might as well offer an opinion.

It's really not that easy to get a sense of people from the sound bites they issue. I have to assume that the three candidates that haven't served on the board have no clue what they're getting into, and that the three who been around the District are good at saying what they think people want to hear.  All in all, though, I've made my choices and offer my thinking:

Candidates I don't support

• Michael Swigart.  Mike's very forthright, and I really appreciate understanding his positions.  I trust him to say what he's actually going to do, and his plans involve increasing class size, which I believe is the wrong approach.  Cutting teachers is not the way to cut the fat from the budget.  Mike is also a fan of building new, and I believe he's probably going to redouble the efforts to do so.  The renovation project did go through as it was proposed, but keeping the middle school where it is continues to be a big priority for a lot of people.  He was a lone voice calling for a full district building analysis for a long time, and this is an idea which is gaining ground.
• Edgar Rodriguez, and not because his lawsuit.  Edgar is promoting this idea of dropping twelfth grade, when finding ways to educate our kids better in the time we have makes more sense than just booting them out earlier.  I'm actually a big supporter of kids leaving school when they've gotten all the education they can handle, but this idea abdicates the responsibility we have towards education.

Candidates I do support

• MaryAnn Tozzi, who will bring the blue-collar perspective that the Board needs.  She's got a kid in the district but also has a tax bill to pay.
• Dominick Profaci, who is the only candidate in a long time to point out what the real problem is - tying school funding to property values.  He believes the BOE should be trying to change that, and I couldn't agree more.  We don't need property tax reform, though, we need property tax abolition.  Our present system punishes people for wanting to stay in the homes and pits lifelong residents against their grandchildren in a struggle over limited resources.  There's got to be a better way.

The other two candidates simply didn't move either way.  Juliet Coxum's reported desire to have the board set up "ad hoc community committees with community members to help them make decisions that affect the schools" sounds like a lot of bureaucratic busywork to me.  Bob Rich has a track record in building consensus for capital projects.  Neither one elicits a strong opinion from me, though.

What I actually think about Edgar

It should not come as any surprise that I have been accused of besmirching Edgar Rodriguez' character, although in fact what I did in that post is lambaste our local paper for withholding information relevant to an election.  I did have an excellent discussion with one of his supporters which helped me articulate my position on Edgar's candidacy, and although I had no intention of actually talking about any of the candidates, addressing those allegations is more important than avoiding campaign politics.

I like the fact that Edgar is a gadfly.  He asks difficult, uncomfortable questions.  He makes it difficult to rubber-stamp things.  He gets people angry with him because he stands up for what he thinks is right, and he takes flak for it.  Without question, Edgar Rodriguez is the gadfly on the school board.

So here I am asking uncomfortable questions about a fellow gadfly.  I'm the lone voice asking these questions, unable to get any newspaper to nibble and likewise unable to get anyone to publicly support my position.  I'm making people uncomfortable and I'm not going away.  Edgar and I have that in common.

There are differences, of course.  Edgar has a thick enough skin to run for office, and I do not.  Edgar's knowledge about the educational system absolutely dwarfs my own.  And Edgar is suing the school district.

This is where the maligning comes in - or at least the accusation of it.  I reviewed the court documents and didn't even want to write about the information available in the public record, because I didn't know how to do it in a manner which would respect the privacy of him and his family.  I wanted a professional to find that balance, a person who was not emotionally involved in the Middle School debate like I was.  Frankly, I didn't feel qualified because I was too close to the situation.

I will attempt, as best I may, to offer only those details which explain my position.

The case involves, as I see it, parents who wanted the best for their child, and encountered instead what they perceived to be behavior targeting them for their family's Hispanic roots.  I'm a white guy and I will not profess to fully understand just how terrible a feeling that must be.  As has been pointed out, my monthly struggle to make the mortgage payment comes from privilege, and I have never had someone target me for a visible characteristic such as gender or skin color.  I can understand the desire to protect one's child, and I have no problem with pursuing any legal means necessary to seek justice.

When Edgar informed his fellow board members that he wouldn't meet with them until they took the Undoing Racism class, it didn't make sense to me.  I looked to the other Latino member of the School Board (forgive me, I don't know if Latino or Hispanic is preferred so I'm interchanging them), Dan Torres, for guidance.  His public comments indicate that he has never experienced the type of racial tension which had been implied.

In the context of the incredible strain of a lawsuit, Edgar's seemingly inexplicable outburst makes more sense to me.  If he sees racism where another person in the same circumstances with a similar ethnic background does not, logic suggests that it's not racism, just the ordinary tension that comes from being a good gadfly.  From the outside looking in, it appears to me that the stress of this suit has made Edgar much more likely to perceive a racial bias instead of just a personality conflict.  Racism has finally gotten to the point where most of the people in this country think it's a really ugly thing, and flippantly accusing people of it is as egregious as committing the act itself.  So far as I know, he has never produced any proof, and he has never apologized for his comment.

Had I been aware of this case before I voted for Edgar last time, I don't know that it would have changed my mind.  I would have asked him then, as I ask him now, to tell the public that he feels he can effectively govern.  I'm a strong advocate of transparency in government, and this issue is one that I think think the voters have the right to consider on election day.

I understand Edgar's desire to keep the matter private, but I question his judgment both in that decision and in his later outburst.  His track record worries me, but some of the candidates this year down right scare me, so I would much rather Edgar explain why I'm off base in questioning that judgment.  The fact that he wasn't supportive of the Middle School shows, as was pointed out to me, that he is in touch with the community.

There are plenty of people who will be disappointed that I am not resoundingly rejecting Edgar as a candidate.  Both supporters and detractors love a good fight, but I'm tired of fighting.  If Edgar shows me that he can distinguish between bona-fide racism and the tension that results from asking questions no one wants to answer, he will have my support.

Is the New Paltz Times protecting Edgar Rodriguez?

Back when the Middle School debate was in full swing. Edgar Rodriguez came out with some pretty strong accusations of racism, which prompted me to dig deeper.  It turned out that this wasn't the first time Edgar had felt discriminated against by the district; in fact, he's got an ongoing lawsuit against both the school district and high school principal Barbara Clinton.  I reviewed the documents available and decided not to blog about it because it was complex, dealt with family issues, and I didn't know that I was divorced enough from the issues to write about it neutrally.

Asking the New Paltz Times for help


I sent an email to Deb Alexsa, editor of the New Paltz Times, on December 26, 2009:

Debbie,

I can't recall if you covered this in any depth back when the District Shared Decision Making Committee was contemplating its belly buttons, but this might be a good time to consider a piece about Edgar Rodriguez' legal actions against the NP school district.

The files on his civil suit, as well as the content of a Commissioner's Hearing that related to the Committee, are available in Bev Cleary's office.  They spent considerable time stripping out the non-FOILable information, so I'd love to see someone get some use from it.

I decided that the cases (the civil suit is still ongoing) were too complex to touch upon in my blog.

My response came shortly thereafter when Mike Townsend interviewed me about the topic.  I didn't know much, but Mike later told me that he'd interviewed many people and wrote (if I recall correctly) a six-page feature story about the lawsuit, which publisher Geddy Sveikauskas decided not to run.

The Middle School issue came and went, and here we are in a School Board election with Edgar running.  I sent Deb another email on April 30:

Hi Deb,

I know that Mike Townsend researched a feature piece about Edgar Rodriguez' school district related lawsuits, and that it was ultimately shelved.  Not knowing what the story covered, I would very much like to see it in print now.  If I had been aware of even the small amount of info I've reviewed myself, it may have changed my vote in Edgar's last run, and I would like the rest of the citizens of New Paltz to have the opportunity to review it through the practiced eye of a trained investigative journalist.

Would it be possible to let me know if the piece could be updated and included in the next issue or, if not, a specific reason for not running it?

If Ulster Publishing elects not to publish the article, perhaps it could be made available to another publication?

Thanks for letting me know.

Terence P Ward

I got no response, when in the past Deb has always replied to me quickly (even when my emails were less than complimentary).  I waited until the next paper came out and, seeing the story wasn't there, I sent a letter to the editor:

Edgar Rodriguez is willing to ask the tough questions, and it's a trait to be valued.  What's not clear to me is whether or not he is also willing to answer the tough questions, because nobody is willing to ask him any.  It never comes up at School Board meetings, and the New Paltz Times buried the story.  All I know is that there's a six-inch-high stack of papers at the district office that relate to his lawsuit against the district - and that's only including what they're legally required to provide to the public.

I was hoping the New Paltz Times would run the story on this ongoing legal action some time ago, because I can't make heads or tails of it and I think it's information that we should all have in front of us as we make our decision on May 18.  Maybe the details about the lawsuit will make Edgar a more appealing candidate for some of us; others may find that a full understanding doesn't sway their poll decision in the slightest.

All I'm asking is an open discussion about the nature of this lawsuit so that we can make an informed decision about this candidate.  Is that unreasonable?

Terence P Ward 

New Paltz

This time Deb replied to me almost immediately:

Hi Terence,

Mike wrote this story some time ago and our publisher dealt with it because I was on vacation. When I returned, he said it wasn’t worth running and not to put any extra time into it. Why doesn’t someone just ask him the question at candidate’s night? I can’t run your letter because it is the week before the election and negative letters about candidates are not allowed.

Deb

Maybe someone would ask at candidate's night, I mused, but I was looking for broader coverage.  My reply:

Honestly, Deb, if you had given me this same response as quickly to my inquiry about the story, I wouldn't have bothered with the letter.  How about I remove reference to the specific candidate and issues, and send in a letter asking why the publisher deemed a six-page feature story on why one of our district trustees is suing the district not worth running?

If Geddy is going to make controversial decisions, he should at least benefit from the publicity the way Rupert Murdoch does.  If you tell me directly not to waste my time, that's fine too - no need to ask the question if it won't make print.

Her reply was short:

Not sure what you mean about your inquiry about the story. I wouldn’t run the letter this week. 

Maybe I was unclear, but I was asking for a way to frame the letter so that it didn't appear to be picking on a candidate.  Or, as I said to my wife who teaches journalism, "Why can't we write a story that covers every candidate that is currently suing the school board?"

I'm still looking for answers on Edgar, why he is pressing this lawsuit and how he feels he can be impartial in this situation - if he does.  I have a lot of opinions about Edgar's hopes and plans, but all I want to know now is why the New Paltz Times and its parent Ulster Publishing continue to bury a perfectly good story.  Rumor has it that Mike Townsend pitched a different angle to Geddy again this week but it was again quashed (I have not spoken to Mike so I can't confirm that).

If anyone is interested, contact the District Information Officer Bev Sickler to arrange to look at the publicly-available lawsuit documents.  Copies of pages are a quarter each but you can look as much as you like for free if you fill out a Freedom of Information request.

I voted no once, too

I'm not always as supportive of capital projects as I was of the Middle School renovation. I was part of a large majority of people that opposed a massive expansion in the district of my youth. Curious?

The district I attended was much larger than this one, having three elementary and two secondary schools, with three of the five buildings occupying adjacent land. (My best friend's middle and high schools were actually physically connected by a corridor, and our experiences completely discounted in my mind the argument that it wouldn't be safe to build a Middle School next to the New Paltz High School, but I see a lot less danger in the world for kids today than many parents do anyway.) Student populations rise and fall, and when I was quite young they decided to close the smallest elementary school and lease the building to BOCES.

After that lease expired they had a different situation on their hands: the high school was jam-packed! The Board of Ed, knowing that it's tough to float a bond, came up with an innovative solution. They would sell the old elementary school to a condo developer to finance the two extra wings they needed for the high school. The project wouldn't have cost that much in dollars, but it would have added 70-80 homes to a community that was simultaneously losing a lot of potential classroom capacity. It went down in flames.

So yes, I understand that there are two sides to every school finance vote, and in this case the side I didn't support won. Frankly, the way our system is designed it's easier to be on the winning side when you're voting no. But what's done is done, and let's move on. The school district's press release said it best:

While we are obviously disappointed in the defeat of the referendum, we will waste no time in setting the outcome aside in order to work towards finding another solution to address our Middle School’s needs. Throughout the entire multi-year planning and discussion about this referendum, people on both sides of the issue were in agreement that there were severe issues at the Middle School that needed to be dealt with. That fact gives us common ground to work on, and we will gather there--on that common ground--to push ahead and seek a solution that the majority of the community can support. We must waste no time in moving forward in order to get our Middle School out of the horrible state of deterioration it faces and ensure that further, more costly issues are not created. The longer we wait, the more will be needed and the costlier the solution will be.

There's a time for fighting and there's a time for fixing. We need to fix things now. New Paltz is a community with such a diverse set of well-considered ideas that sometimes, particularly in a place like this blog where we can hide behind our keyboards, things get pretty heated. But this isn't just an internet forum - we are neighbors and, for the most part, we all like living here.

Shall we shelve the rhetoric and work towards finding a way to say yes? The problems at the school aren't going away and no one has said they want to stop educating our kids. How about we step outside, take a breath of fresh air, and have a cup of coffee with someone that didn't agree so we can find that common ground? I hear The Bakery is a great place for a lively debate.

Undoing Racism in New Paltz

Doing the research for my letter to the New Paltz Times also made me curious about the Undoing Racism course that Mr. Rodriguez felt his fellow Trustees should be taking. What type of coursework was it?

Superintendent Rice told me to contact Ulster County BOCES, whose offices I contacted a little bit late on a Friday for anybody high up to be around the office. Administrative professionals do all the real work, but would rather not have their name attached to anything. I did find out that the program was actually created and presented by The People's Institute.

I did, last Monday, speak to a member of the Ulster County BOCES staff about the class. I have his name here, but he didn't actually ever give me permission to use it. Bloggers don't have a universal code of ethics, but I don't think it's right to mention someone's name if they don't say I can. For the most part he might have been reading from the link above, but he eventually told me something that was not on the web site - that New Paltz (the district) was a strong participant in the Undoing Racism class. Some people get uncomfortable or defensive during the program, but the attendees from New Paltz (which are many) "always stay to the end."

My Rodriguez letter to the New Paltz Times

After writing about my initial reactions to Edgar Rodriguez' racism accusations I decided to dig deeper into the matter. I wrote a letter to the New Paltz Times about the subject, which I present here as well. I know that NPT has about a billion times' the readership of the Gadfly, but there's no reason to deprive to two or three who read here and not there. (I also hope this post lasts longer than the month or so they keep their letters online.)

As a white male, I realize that I'm not permitted to have an opinion which runs contrary to a claim of racism. So, I will allow others more qualified to speak on my behalf today.

Trustee Edgar Rodriguez made such claims at a recent Board of Education meeting. It's not the first time he's felt discriminated against; Rodriguez filed a suit against SUNY New Paltz in 1984 alleging the same. In that case, Rodriguez claimed that he was denied tenure because of his race, while the court felt that SUNY was consistent in requiring Mr. Rodriguez complete his Ph.D., like others are required to do, and so found no evidence of racial bias.

At the Board of Education meeting in question, after Trustee Rodriguez left, Trustee Daniel Torres thanked the district for the many opportunities he had received as a student and pointed out that he had, earlier that day, attended the Latino Leadership Luncheon at Marist College where he is a student. Trustee Torres, himself a Latino, apparently does not feel the same racial tensions as Trustee Rodriguez.

Racism is an ugly thing that should be addressed immediately and quashed completely wherever it is found. Still uglier is making a false claim of racism to cloud the issue of the middle school's renovation, because it gives bigots ammunition for hatred and devalues the experience of real victims.

I don't doubt that Trustee Rodriguez is presently getting a frosty reception from other board members, but perhaps he should apply Occam's Razor and discard other, more likely possibilities as to why, such as his battleground mentality and dissemination of incorrect information about the project to the public. I am glad that he is willing to express a minority view, but he should check his facts if he wants to have any credibility, and he certainly shouldn't assume racism just because he's not being listened to.

My next post will be on what I learned about the Undoing Racism course.

Racism? orly?

Trustee Edgar Rodriguez dropped a very colorful ball during the circus that was the most recent Board of Education meeting. In amongst a series of bizarre votes and actions, some of which seem to have been made up on the spot by board members, Rodriguez gave the rest of the board the impression that he thought they were all racist. I'm sure I'll be accused of either being Eurocentric or hopelessly naive for saying so, but I didn't realize we had more than one race among the board members.

Middle School Renovation
Let's back up a bit. Edgar Rodriguez felt outnumberered on the Board of Education from the day he was elected, and from my conversations with him I believed it to be because the other members at the time were very conservative and didn't hold the same philosophies about taxation and education. The debate over the Middle School led at least two of the current members to run for the Board, and I figured that if anything, Edgar had made it into the majority of thought, but apparently the shift still left him out in the cold.

The details of the renovation have been discussed at recent BoE meetings, and last week a fellow Board member told me that Edgar was handing out information to the public that was "just flat-out wrong." In particular, he made notes in the margins of some financial statements that made claims about what the district currently owed that were incorrect - claims that were corrected at the most recent meeting by superintendent Maria Rice, and were also the focus of much of the shenanigans that occured.

To say that Edgar is not quite decided on the fate of the Middle School is both fair and understandable. He voted to move forward with renovation over building anew, a project that would have cost far more in the long run but less per year, but now he's expressing concerns about the senior citizens in New Paltz (although maybe this project will get them moving into Woodland Pond more quickly, so the first residents won't have to pay extra if the facility isn't filled up - a bizarre contract clause that the Woodland Pond Board thought appropriate to foist upon their neighbors . . . but, I digress). I would probably have trouble balancing the needs to the community, too, because the property tax model pits our children against our elderly. I get that.

Let's not let the public see this
At the last meeting, Rodriguez' ambivalence was a focus. Trustee Patrick Rausch, according to the New Paltz Times, wanted to move to executive session to work out the disagreement. That's a creative use of executive session if I ever saw one. I may just try it on the Village Planning Board. Oh, wait, that's right, they would ask me the legal justification for the motion and I'd either talk out my butt or sit there with my mouth agape, because you can't just go into executive session because you disagree. Public meetings are about public debate, right?

Then Rausch tried a different tack, suggesting that they close the meeting and enter a "retreat" to discuss their differences. The fact that they seriously discussed this possibility would lead me to believe that Rausch didn't make this idea up on the spot, but I'm still not convinced. It sounds to me like another way to dodge the Open Meetings Law, like when they denied Rodriguez the right to attend Facilities Committee meetings (even as a spectator) so that the meetings wouldn't have to be open to the public. This kind of secrecy makes me want to vote "no" on anything they bring before me - what could you possibly have to say to each other that you can't say in public? How do you intend on treating this man?

But . . . the race card?
Edgar Rodriguez, who left the meeting early after casting the only vote against not adjourning it, told his fellows trustees he would not go to a retreat with them unless they all attend the "Undoing Racism" course. He was later quoted as saying, ". . . I am getting differential treatment on the board. And I'm starting to believe that it is because of my racial ethnicity."

As I said above, I never thought of Edgar as being a member of a different race than the remainder of the school board. There are three races, I was taught, and they are characterized by physical differences. Edgar does not possess a high melanin content, broad nose and lips, and highly kinked hair; nor does he have an epicantic fold that changes the appearance of his eyes. Granted, his skin lacks the particularly pasty quality of mine, but it's no darker than that of my Italian friends, and I'm certain that I share a race with them.

Did nature evolve a race of people with a genetic predisposition for fluency in Spanish that I am not aware of? Well Dan Torres should be a member of that race and be getting similar treatment. In fact, each of the board members seems to occupy a different racial profile: woman, firefighter, entrepreneur, IBMer . . . aren't these all races? No?

I don't think Edgar is wrong to believe he's being picked on, but I think it's got nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender, or any of those qualities which he cannot control and from which genuine discrimination springs. Edgar has sat on this board long enough to see it swing from one end of the political continuum to the other and it change from almost entirely white men to a body diverse in ethnicity and representing both genders. I think that if he's still feeling like he's left out in the cold, that it might be more about how he behaves as a trustee of the Board of Education. It's about dispensing inaccurate information, the victim mentality, and not knowing how to conduct yourself when you hold a minority view in an elected body. If you want to be a kid, go trick-or-treating. We need adults handling our schools, thank you.

The Board of Education seems to be an illegally secretive body, but those secrets don't look like they have anything to do with race. I only wish that the much-needed shakeup on this Board could occur before the Middle School matter is voted on by the public, so that we can separate that question from these childish shenangins.

We need a clear plan for disciplining our kids

If you've ever watched Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader, you've probably been stumped by a fair amount of the questions that throw at the contestants. Some of them are bloody hard, but that's good - it prepares our kids for much tougher things, like reading the Code of Conduct for the New Paltz Central School District.

Some background: every year the Health Advisory Committee, a group of faculty, parents, and community members appointed by the Board of Education, review and revise the district's code of conduct. Then the Board reviews what they say, and approve some form of it.

What the actual Code ends up being is a Gordian knot of vague statements supported by endless appendices that is damned near impossible to decipher. The actual Code lays out what's expected, because it frames it in a positive light. However, this means that one might want to look up in a stressful hurry - say, what happens when you or your kid is accused of doing something wrong - you discover it all crammed in the back, as if it were an afterthought. To make things even more fun, the list of prohibited conduct is one appendix, and the consequences comprise another one entirely. What this means is that you have to find the bad behavior in Attachment C, and then cross-reference it against the list of punishments in Attachment D.

I'm sure that all of these hard-working volunteers have the very best of intentions, but it makes me recall the joke about a camel being a horse built by committee. And the organization of the document hides some even more troublesome facts.

When I was a kid, it was universally accepted that there could be no more terrible punishment than having to sit quietly in a room, doing nothing, for an entire school day. Okay, maybe some schoolwork if you were lucky enough to have a teacher send some down (and you'd be begging for that to happen after a couple of hours), but no talking, standing, moving, singing, sleeping, leaving, or enjoying was permitted. There were always tales about that really bad kid who decked the principle and got expelled, but that was serious stuff - it never happened to someone you knew or anything.

I'm finding that in the New Paltz Code of Conduct, the phrase "permanent suspension" (which sounds like Newspeak for "expelled") is popular - it's a listed consequence for twenty-four different offenses, ranging from violence and theft to lying and using an MP3 player. I emailed the superintendant on September 18 requesting some fairly detailed information about how often this and related consequences (suspension from school, as opposed to in school suspension) were actually meted out last school year; as of this writing I haven't even heard whether or not she intends on supplying me with those data.

Removing a misbehaving child from the classroom is often a good idea, and in extreme circumstances I'm sure it's useful to keep them out of the building, too. But in a world were parents have to work, being sent home isn't so much a punishment as it is an abdication of responsibility. If a kid brings a weapon to school, of course the first priority is safety, but shouldn't the second be to figure out what's up with this kid? That might be harder if they're, oh, wandering the streets for an extra four hours a day (figuring two hours a day is being spent with a district-supplied tutor). If it's serious enough to keep the kid out of school, it should also be serious enough to keep the kid in a juvenile hall or psychiatric facility. Any kid that isn't in one of those categories shouldn't be sent home as a reward for "Engaging in any willful act that disrupts the normal operation of the school community." (prohibited conduct A9).

So my concerns about the existing Code of Conduct are three:

1. It's so badly organized as to appear to be deliberately confusing,
2. It permits removal of children from school when that may be detrimental to both the child and the community, and
3. It provides so much latitude in meting out punishments that a child could be expelled for lying (prohibited conduct D1).

Let's keep the kids in the classroom, or at least the school, unless it's dangerous to do so - and get those kids the help they need, instead. Understanding that the current Code provides flexibility so that an administrator won't find her hands tied when she needs to act, let's take another look at whether or not the punishment fits the crime. And to make any of that possible, let's make some real changes to how the Code reads, so that's it's understandable to the layman instead of the lawyer.

Otherwise, what are we teaching our kids?

School Board Election Results

Budget Passed 844 to 206

kt Tobin Flusser 826
Dan Torres 820
Don Kerr 802

write ins
Nikki Nielson 1
Jason West 1
Pete Healey 1

Responsive Government

For about eighteen months now I have been a regular attendee at the New Paltz School District school board meetings. This is the second budget process I have had a front row seat for (literally). Throughout these two cycles, myself and others, via public comment at board meetings, and now this year, via a school district budget blog, have requested more detail -- down to the line items -- on the proposed budgets.

And guess what. Last night, by a vote of 5-2 (Rod Dressel and David Dukler dissenting), our school board voted to post the full, detailed, line item proposed (draft 3) budget on the district's website. You can see it here.

WOW! KUDOS to our school board! Thank you for listening.

(See, being pesky works!)

kt tobin flusser

Get Your Free Hybrid School Bus Here!

With all the bean-counting school budget prep and the fight over seven percent, I'm sure a lot of us are mindful of ways to help the district get a leg up. Today I saw a brief in New York Teacher about an essay competition with a hybrid bus as the grand prize. The $5,000 scholarship may just motivate a few of our talented local students, at least if the $3,000 school supply award convinces teachers to spread the word.

I figure it can't hurt. Please tell your local educators to get those essays going!

I apologize for not making this easy, but please share this post on Facebook as well. Many kids use it, and if they like the idea word will get around lickety-split.

Yes, I said lickety-split.