The Observation Deck

Danielle is right and there is a huge difference between whiny and standing up. I guess I have been lucky and haven't had anything to whine or stand up about at meetings. I love the full day kindergarten program they implemented, love the new schools, LOVE the fact that the high school is letting us know in their newsletter that they are turning to the progressive way of assessing kids and teaching more critical thinking by using the formative AND the summative assessments to see where kids are at and group them to help them get further. I really look forward to hearing how that works out and if the teachers all get on board with it. It requires more work of the teachers but is seemingly the best way to teach according to the research and I hope it takes off.

However I know moms who have had concerns and attend the school board meetings and stand up and I think it takes a lot of guts and strength to do it. I also think the ones doing the majority of the PTA work for the schools are saints. I really applaud those groups for advocating for the rest of us and working so hard in the schools and I hope I can do more one day. I honestly can't seem to find the time or energy to do even that. But the school board should be reserved for someone who can devote the time and has the experience to really be there for the kids. It just makes people worried about someone being chosen that is not elected, even though that has worked out in the past. And the school board is a tough job that they all deserve credit for, I agree. When a school board member takes the calls of a worried mom directly and takes time to call moms on his own time like Matt Markling, it just makes you hope for more like that. No whining intended.

I have to say that while I can't devote the time to even think about being a school board member I did just spend the last 2 hours and 45 minutes sitting in at a board meeting. I think that what is important is that we as a community show the board members that we do have a vested interest in who they appoint by being active and sharing our voices. I know not everyone can attend every meeting, I know I certainly can't, but we need to be active, we need to let our voices be heard, we need to all work together as a community. I hope that whomever is appointed shares that vision and is willing to put in a 110% to make sure that our schools work to serve the needs of all children and that that member is willing to work with the community.

Danielle Masters wrote:I hope that whomever is appointed shares that vision and is willing to put in a 110% to make sure that our schools work to serve the needs of all children and that that member is willing to work with the community.

Danielle/Justine

I am not sure that Steve Davis meant you were whining. I have heard him give the community activist speech many times, and whiny is usually part of it. It is that speech that got me to the Board of Elections with Steve and I pulling petitions to run for office.

As for the 110%...

Why not give these people more money? It would seem that our Superintendent makes 156 times what his bosses make. I am not saying we should give them $240,000, but I would think $10,000 would be fairer. Ot as I have suggested with Council, give them more help via assistants.

I have almost every contract and study done on the new schools in my office, also all of the meetings that lead to the buildings. The amount work they must go over, certainly needs more time than the $1,700 a year would offset.

We are a big city, not some farm town. We have big city problems, and $25 million in new buildings, it would seem that $10,000 plus might widen the number of qualified applicants.

FWIW


.

I would be in total support of giving them more money in my mind they have earned it, but I doubt any of them really do it for the money, still you are right they should get more.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Danielle Masters wrote:I hope that whomever is appointed shares that vision and is willing to put in a 110% to make sure that our schools work to serve the needs of all children and that that member is willing to work with the community.

Danielle/Justine

I am not sure that Steve Davis meant you were whining. I have heard him give the community activist speech many times, and whiny is usually part of it. It is that speech that got me to the Board of Elections with Steve and I pulling petitions to run for office.

As for the 110%...

Why not give these people more money? It would seem that our Superintendent makes 156 times what his bosses make. I am not saying we should give them $240,000, but I would think $10,000 would be fairer. Ot as I have suggested with Council, give them more help via assistants.

I have almost every contract and study done on the new schools in my office, also all of the meetings that lead to the buildings. The amount work they must go over, certainly needs more time than the $1,700 a year would offset.

We are a big city, not some farm town. We have big city problems, and $25 million in new buildings, it would seem that $10,000 plus might widen the number of qualified applicants.

FWIW


.

I actually do agree that Steve had some good points-even though most of the moms couldn't devote the time to that position, I know his point was that there are definitely qualified people in those groups. I think any mom who can run entire PTA's which do incredible work for the schools is qualified, but of course the PTA would lose them. I just know for all of them who wouldn't even think of running because of small kids and time, that none of them should be ignored with their advocacy at the meetings. I moved to this street the last year Franklin was open so I missed all the work the PTA and active parents did to save that school after they were misled. I don't know all the details so I am not judging on how or why it happened like it did, but I saw defeated, untrusting, disillusioned eyes in those parents, and many of them were the same ones who did the bulk of the work at Franklin so EVERY kid had events and fun and money. One of them, Cheryl Nekl, worked through various cancers until they took her life this year. She was a heroine to so many for her devotion, and there are others like her, paying taxes, volunteering countless hours in the school, advocating for levies, and keeping Lakewood up to par, whom will never run but do much for every kid in this city and their presence at those meetings and everywhere is important. I do get that is what Steve's point was and he ackowledges their presence.

All-

This type of thing is common in government. Let me define it:

Step 1) I am a politician who is finished/tired of/moving on from my current position.

Step 2) I think I know best who should replace me.

Step 3) I will get re-elected because I am popular, then I will resign and the rest of the guys, with whom I have considerable influence, will replace me with a candidate of my choice.

This is not isolated to our current situation in Lakewood and often occurs at the state and local level (it is disgustingly popular in the Ohio General Assembly).

This is where I really agree with DL, it subverts the political process. To re-elect someone and then have them turn around and give their seat away is unacceptable.

This is exactly what happened with our school board case. You couldn't say before the election that you didn't know that Estrop was leaving or that the financial state of the schools is becoming more precarious and that the final phase of the building project could be in jeopardy. So what changed for Chas?

Talk of this "political positioning" was rampant before the election. Word on the street back then was that Jay Foran would be the Geiger replacement and I would place money on that today. Jay is very skilled and brings much to the district, but the cloud of deceiving democracy does him and the board a disservice.

The talk on the street for the past couple of months is that Betsey Shaughnessy and Linda Beebe will be next. I don't blame them for calling it quits because they have been doing the job for so long; however, the cultural of the good 'ole boy network at the school board needs to stop.

Any honest individual who cares about the school district and our City should not bother with the appointment process because it will be a sham, much like the ones at city hall. What you should do is go to the Board of Elections in January and pull a petition to run for any of the three seats that will be on the November ballot. Let's shake things up.

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:Let me define it:

No thanks.


.

With the problems that we will be facing in education for the next generation, we really need someone who is creative, dedicated and intelligent. We have many of those people in Lakewood but the name that immediately comes to my mind is Ken Warren.

I would venture to say that he may have done more to educate the citizens of Lakewood than anyone else I have known.

He has been there for all of our children but especially children that often don't have anyone else there for them. He is one of the least judgemental people with children - working positively with all of them. He has understood the need for parents to have a place for children after school and has innovated programs for the children. But he hasn't stopped with just children - he has realized that education is for everyone - and has innovated programs for every age group - including computer classes for seniors. These are just some of the reasons that the library has consistently ranked among the top in the nation.

This is what he has done with education from a library, think of the innovative ideas he could come up with if he worked with the schools. I saw many of you suggested that he would be a great superintendent. My guess is he doesn't have a superintendents certificate and with his retirement he may not want a full time job. But his skills would be incredible as a school board member. I know he is dedicated to community service. I would suggest encouraging him to apply for this opening.

Lynn you hit the nail on the head. Last night at our PALS meeting (thanks to those who attended) it was repeatedly brought up that people want someone in the office of superintendent and people on the school board that think outside of the box. This is Lakewood and we need folks who are willing to think of innovative ways to do more with less. I love my school district but I am tired of the behind the scene deals, it's time for transparency, it's time for change and I hope that the change that comes will be good. I hope Ryan is wrong because I will be disappointed if all these rumors are true about a replacement already being handpicked, if it is true then Chas and the others who are aware and involved should be ashamed.

What is happening to our community?

Is anyone capable of seeing the goodness in people any more?

What I have read over the past week is most disheartening. Sorry all, but this board is not on the "uplifting community course" it once aspired for or regularly proclaims.

In the past week:

I have seen it written that Chas Geiger misled voters...is not a man of his word....that there is something else behind his decision...there just has to be! That even though he settled it within himself and his family that it was time to retire that he even got that wrong...it was a resignation.

I have seen it written that Linda Beebe and Betsy Shaughnessy are not transparent with the community because they do not post on this board. That Ed Favre and Matt Markling are because they choose to post. Like posting on this board is a litmus test for being deemed honest folk. Don't post on this board and obviously you have something to hide. Forget the fact that you hold two public meetings every month and will take any call a citizen makes to you.

Danielle rails against regular back room deals by the current board. She is already on record with others in the community asserting that Grant is doomed to be closed because my son goes to Lincoln. Obviously, for me it has to be that simple.

And now this latest post by Ryan. Chas is your standard politician, he is pompous enough to believe that he can conspire and hand pick his successor and his personal plan for deception was hatched sometime last year. Anybody who is anybody knew this plan has been a long time in the making.

Anyone here really know Chas Geiger? Are you familiar with his almost incomprehensible level of humility, generosity and commitment to Lakewood? 22 years of unselfish, ethical and distinguished service?...a lily white track record...and yet the best we can choose is lower him and other community servants to a bunch of schmucks with self-feeding egos and agendas.

Thank you Chas, Linda, Betsy, Ed, Matt, Mayor Ed, Nickie, Mike S., Tom, Kevin, Brian, Mary, Mike D. and so many others that serve with the best for Lakewood always in their heart and mind.

As for me, there will be no Board of Education aspirations. I got involved like so many others a few years back because of our love for Lakewood and the belief that continually improving the level of education was directly proportional to our ability to advance as a society. It was truly a magical time....lots of hope...a period of folks tempering their agendas..wearing the trust vest for a while....and thinking first about the kids...Now that was fun!

So while I sit here and stew.... I return to my own rhetorical question....is anyone capable of seeing the goodness in people anymore? For me, the answer is clearly printed on thousands of recreational sports jerseys that have been worn by generations of kids in our community.

Thanks Chas! I deeply appreciate your many contributions.

Jay I have just passed on the rumors that people have come to me with, many families at Grant are very worried. A family that moved on Wagar Avenue this summer and were told at the Board of Education not to register their child at Grant because the school would be closing, they told him to register at Lincoln which is what they did. A family was told by the mayor that Grant would close and the Board offices would move into the current Grant building. I have dates, times and names. But I believe that the demographics have changed and that things are different, this is what I have been told in the past few weeks by people at the board. And I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I am hoping that things are changing and in the past few months in public meetings I have said that I trust the board that no final decision has been made on the school closing. I hope Mr. Favre and Mr. Markling will back me up as I repeated that again on Thursday night. I am also tired of the rumor mills, but without total transparency the rumors will continue. Finally people are attending board meetings and asking questions which is good. This is a good community and I will say it again I do hope the rumors prove to be false. I want to believe the best in people. Several board members have said that the Franklin school closing was botched, let's hope that with another school possibly closing the lessons have truly been learned, because otherwise we all lose.

Jay, you wrote:

I return to my own rhetorical question....is anyone capable of seeing the goodness in people anymore?

First, I wrote a very nice post about Ken Warren, I thought.

But yes, I think there many people capable of seeing the goodness in people. I'm blown away every day by the wonderful people in this world and in Lakewood in particular.

Look at this board, Missy has just taken in a dog that other people had abused and gave that dog and her puppies a great home. Jennifer Scott adopted a blind kitten. Catherine Butler and Mike D. work with the animal shelter and the dog park along with so many other un named people.

Have you been to a PTA meeting - these are parents and teachers that are working every day to make the schools a better place for our children.

While I agree with you that Chas has contributed to this community. There are many other unsung heros that have worked with the recreation department or the music boosters raising funds, coaching or providing moral support. I cheer for all of them.

There are so many people in Lakewood that work with their church for charities, or simply help their neighbors or take care of aging parents or raise good children that will be great citizens. They are also heros in my book.

I see the business people in our community that work hard to create jobs and improve the community. Or the many people that work in our community.

I also see the goodness in the public officials, they and the many, many citizens that serve on committees and spend their precious time to make Lakewood a better place. They are all to be commended.

But equally important in the goverment process are their critics. The media or people like Bill Call and many other unsung heros help in a watchdog fashion to challenge and push our goverment to do the best for the citizens. Because the goverment officials know people in Lakewood care about good goverment, and will challenge the goverment, I believe our goverment is better.

Questioning, challenging and insisting on open government shouldn't be seen as negative but as a very positive activitiy. I read this thread and had quite the oppositie reaction. I was pleased that in this city people feel good about having open and honest debate using their own names.

Jay,

It is not a matter of being able to see the goodness in Chas. We all know it is there; however, we are certainly entitled to question his judgement in this matter. We are the people who elected him to that position. I expected him to finish his term or give a darn good reason for leaving. It is our right as voters to do so in a democracy.

In many private organizations leaders are chosen in back rooms, by committee, or by ascendancy. Those tactics are antithetical to our version of democracy. Chas' resignation deprives the community of its right to choose a leader and hands it to four people. This just after we had an opportunity to make that choice at the ballot box. It is important to have transparency and responsiveness in government. It is what Matt Markling has been working very hard to provide in his short time on the Board and it is what I did at City Hall.

I think that it is important to be able to separate the person from the position in this case. Chas is an awesome individual who has achieved much and given much to the community. In this case he made a judgement that I and others disagree with only in form. I will end by posing a question I think is appropriate to the situation, "If Chas had retired very near the end of his term or had he not sought re-election would I feel differently?"

The answer is YES.

Jay Foran wrote: I have seen it written that Linda Beebe and Betsy Shaughnessy are not transparent with the community because they do not post on this board. That Ed Favre and Matt Markling are because they choose to post. Like posting on this board is a litmus test for being deemed honest folk. Don't post on this board and obviously you have something to hide. Forget the fact that you hold two public meetings every month and will take any call a citizen makes to you..

Jay

No one has ever called this a ltimus test, but you might be right, it could be. Not of "honest folk" but of people that feel ideas, and projects are not hurt by vetting them to the public using their real name. A litmus test for honesty, hardly, but certainly a gold standard for people choosing to own their words and thoughts in public. Beyond a shadow of doubt this is the easiest, safest, most honest and effective way to reach out to the city of Lakewood. No one gets the news and discussion out faster or better to more people. With NO AGENDA.

However you seem to be mixing up thoughts and comments. Mr. Markling and Mr. Favre were applauded for coming into the discussion. For being open and and being forthright with constituents. Again no level of honesty associated, but certainly a sense of community, a sense of PUBLIC discussion, and a sense of Board Members willing to openly discuss issues, with people that help pay the bills.

Do you really think it is best for the Board to work each member of the city through phone calls? A Tuesday night meeting where much is decided outside of the room? To me that is what it would seem Danielle, Justine, and Ryan are speaking of. Is it better to choose the next member over coffee at Caribou or through public dialogue, and board members actually talking with people that elected them and helped pay for the schools? Of course you are correct, everyone should call Chas Geiger at the work, with every question. Then call Linda, then call Betsey, then call Ed, then call Matt. You know sometimes in public discussions, if you are not familiar, others have important information to share, and can actually make a discussion stronger, better, and more valuable.

I also do not see this as an attack, on Chas or his integrity, but his decision making skills. some of the comments on this board could even come from disappointment. A person tells you four years and looking forward to the challenges, then suddenly changes his/her mind, I can see a legitimate reason for buyers remorse. After all, these people voted HIM in based on HIS record of HONESTY. If anything this underlines their deep appreciation and respect for Chas Geiger until this recent event.

However, if some of the statements here, also by honest people, and even board members is true, than it would point to a deep division in the board, and potentially one of the problems. It seems half the board, and others knew of the pending retirement, and massive change to the board, and half did not.

As you have often said, schools are one of the most important aspects of a city. This city agrees, and bought $25,000,000 in schools in a down turned economy. Is this not a legitimate discussion and conversation, about who runs the schools, and is appointed?

This is what I do not understand about your thoughts on this. As you well know, the discussion on this board, is going on all over the city. Why did he retire? Why did he run and retire? Is it connected to Dr. Estrop's letter of resignation from when he signed his contract? Are there problems? Are there problems with the news schools? Health? or maybe, he has found something he would rather do with his life after 22 years of dedication?

Now to the transparency issue with Betsey and Linda, two people I enjoy and respect. I take it you mean my comment about the "lurking." Well again it would seem you see the worst in this.

lurk (lûrk) Pronunciation Key
intr.v. lurked, lurk·ing, lurks
1. To lie in wait, as in ambush.
2. To move furtively; sneak.
3. To exist unobserved or unsuspected: danger lurking around every bend.
4. To read but not contribute to the discussion in a newsgroup, chatroom, or other online forum.


Nothing wrong, illegal or clandestine about that. If anything it would underline that they also believe the discussion here is valuable enough to come and read, but have chosen not to contribute to the public discussion.

No attack, just simple facts misconstrued by a reader. Which often happens. Who then took the time to post their thoughts in public, and now others can learn from their thoughts and facts, and any responses that come from them.

I for one am disappointed that you are now saying "never" you certainly worked hard to build the new schools, pushing the project through. Your work with the Alumni Group is to be commended. It would seem that you certainly have the background, and have done the homework. Practically every email I have received from Dr. Estrop, Chas Geiger, and the board has had your name on it as well, along with others.

So, to recap. Chas Geiger has been repeatedly commended by all for his 22 years of service. His family has been commended and thanked. We know it is not because of health, but because it was time of his choosing. However the retirement (his words, and how the LO has handled it) is being questioned as to why, and what comes next for the schools. Some in the city would hope it is a more open process. Those people believe so strongly in that that they have attached their real names to it. As have you.

FWIW


.

I have read the discussion here and was hesitant about posting anything because of the heated debate between individuals who clearly have been invested in this situation longer than I have.

However, the most recent posts have prompted me to comment with something that I feel is being overlooked.

There is no doubt that Mr. Geiger deserves a certain degree of respect from the community regardless of your personal opinion on his politics for the service he has done for the Lakewood Schools.

I also understand and empathize with voters who feel somewhat disappointed at the very least by Mr. Geiger's retirement after only a year of his elected four. And Mr. Foran, I can see why you would feel as if this conversation has become too negative.

HOWEVER:

As a journalist and as a citizen in a society that values free speech, there is a great value in rumor and discussion and asking questions.

Of course, acting capriciously on the first rumor that sounds reasonable is foolish, but rumors are useful in that they often spur interest in a topic and force people to find out the truth.

I do not feel that it is negative to be suspicious of the retirement, especially if you voted for Mr. Geiger. It would only be negative if a once positive opinion of him was turned into distaste solely by these events which are purported to have continued for some time.

And by the way, according to national journalistic standards, a public citizen (politicians, celebrities, etc.) by accepting their fame are acknowledging that they will be facing a certain degree of scrutiny by the press and public. This is what the free press is based upon and it helps to insure democratic ideals. To claim that people are being unfair or negative in rational criticism or question of Mr. Geiger's retirement decision is in itself somewhat delusional.

But I digress. What I feel is the most essential part of this current discussion of the new board member is what Jim brought up in his previous post. There need to be public discussions about the selection.

The Board should collect all the applications of those interested and bring them before the public in a round table of sorts to see who seems to best represent the current interests of the community.

Furthermore, it would allow high school students as well to share a voice in this process to some degree. As a student at LHS, I know that there are quite a few students who have maturely expressed that they feel the Board does not care about what they think on important issues. Many of these students will be voting in the upcoming election and are almost adults. I think an open discussion where these students were invited to participate would not only be an excellent civic experience, but it would give the Board a new perspective on what their charges feel. After all, how often do the Board members really get to sit down and have candid discussions without formalities with the very people they are making policy for?

So I urge everyone, and those who read but don't post, to consider including not only the community in these discussions, but High School students as well. It is after all, their city too.