The Observation Deck

Details will follow.

Is this good news or more of the same?

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say for you it will be more of the same.

Wasn't the recent levy approval a mandate for business as usual.

Bill

Bill Trentel wrote:Wasn't the recent levy approval a mandate for business as usual.

Bill

Bill and Bill

I would say that it is not a mandate for business as usual. But the very closed school board
will spin it into business as usual.

Recently I saw the school board take a section of the city that supported the levy more than
the rest, the center of the city. Spin that into "Well that is because they approved us closing
their school." An out right lie and misuse of the facts. The fact is that those parents valued
education and was hoping that passage and support would get the board to revisit the decision.

More interested in educating through spin, than education.

FWIW


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bill Trentel wrote:Wasn't the recent levy approval a mandate for business as usual.

Bill

Bill and Bill

I would say that it is not a mandate for business as usual. But the very closed school board
will spin it into business as usual.

Recently I saw the school board take a section of the city that supported the levy more than
the rest, the center of the city. Spin that into "Well that is because they approved us closing
their school." An out right lie and misuse of the facts. The fact is that those parents valued
education and was hoping that passage and support would get the board to revisit the decision.

More interested in educating through spin, than education.

FWIW


.

Hi Jim,

Where did the illusion come from that the school board would revisit the decision to close Grant?

I believe the public is capable of forming opinions and making decisions based on the merits of each issue that presents itself...it would be a mistake to take the support shown for the school levy and confer that to the Grant School closing decision/process.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I'm gonna take a wild guess and say for you it will be more of the same.

Are you saying I am transparent?

How can this be?

Most people say I am opaque!

Hi Jim,

Where did the illusion come from that the school board would revisit the decision to close Grant?

I believe the public is capable of forming opinions and making decisions based on the merits of each issue that presents itself...it would be a mistake to take the support shown for the school levy and confer that to the Grant School closing decision/process.

Mr. Meeson,

I know you are directing your comments back to Jim; however, I think I can offer some insight on these issues. First, there has been a group of us that have been very outspoken about the decision made by our Board to not include Grant in the Phase 3 process. We believe we have a solid case that closing Grant, or any school, would be wrong for our school district and our city.

It would have been easy for us to react to the February decision to close Grant Elementary with an organized effort to defeat the levy. Believe me, there was a lot of discussion on what to do about the levy. On one hand, we didn’t want it to “reward” our School Board for their negligence to do their due diligence when it came to making a sound decision on Phase 3. Heck, they didn’t even want to share with the community and Grant parents why they wanted to close the school.

Yet, the bottom line was that our kids & their education would be negatively affected if the levy failed. One of our goals as a group is to work toward replacing our current Board with elected officials who value the community, do the work necessary to make decisions that are sound and have the best outcome for our district, and who are willing to conduct business in the light of day. We didn’t want our new Board members to start out with a bigger financial mess than necessary. But, we did debate it. I think that if you review the voting numbers from the levy it is clear that if we wanted to defeat the levy we could have moved our group to do that. We understand that our fight will come if this Board tries to get a bond passed to move forward with Phase 3 as it is currently structured.

Our Board is disconnected and has members that have been serving for so long that they no longer understand their own community. They will brag that they have been here their whole lives and that means something; yet, they don’t even get who or what Lakewood is. I think the group in the center has demonstrated that they care about the city, the district, and our Lakewood families. We made a choice to quiet down about Phase 3 during the levy campaign so our criticism wouldn’t aid in a defeat of the levy. We get it.

We have never given up the idea of having the Board revisit their decision. They can do that now, or do they can do that when we defeat the Bond. We have continued to write, contact state & local officials, do more research, and recruit citizens of our community who believe that Lakewood must retain a school in the center of our city-- citizens who believe and understand that our current School Board (minus Mr. Markling) are not acting in good faith.

In fact, at the recent Lakewood Board of Education Retreat (June 7, 2010), Superintendent Madak brought up re-visiting the closing of a school as potential "new business" for the Board. He thought more homework needed to be done on the issue before our district even started thinking about closing a school.

According to Madak, we really need to find out if it is feasible to have only six schools, if our kids will benefit, and if we can live with the consequences of closing a school. You know, these are questions that Phase 3 asked the Board to research and answer. We spent thousands of dollars on a company to facilitate Phase 3 to do this work and it was blocked because the Phase 3 Committee was a farce.

The fact is that our School Board passed a resolution in 2008 (we discovered this by doing a public records request) to demolish Grant. That is a year before the Phase 3 Committee started meeting. The Board spent thousands of our dollars to ensure an outcome they had already decided. Will the Board refuse to revisit their Phase 3 decision even though the decision they've made will cost taxpayers millions of dollars to put a school where we don’t need it? I don’t know. I know that in response to Dr. Madak’s thought to revisit Phase 3, one School Board member became agitated and said that, “It is out of the question! We are going to have 6 schools!" The other School Board members in attendance did not oppose Dr. Madak’s suggestion.

The School Board Retreat last week was the first time in a long time that the Board has held any kind of real open discussion. I spent the day with them, administrators, and at one point, state representatives and Lakewood teacher union members. I realize not everyone has the time to spend a day at a retreat (especially when you can’t talk—just observe), but I do encourage our citizens to attend School Board meetings and to ask questions.

We are still waiting for the State of Ohio to let us know where we are at with Phase 3; if you are interested in staying up-to-date on what is happening, you can contact me or email, [url]centralelementary@yahoo.com[/url], to have someone contact you. In the coming months look for more information to come out and for information on how you can be more involved if you want.

Okay Kristine, you know I have to ask, which School Board member was it who became agitated? And do you have any idea why he/she was so upset?

Given the fact that the Board never even discussed the hiring of Jan Soeder's replacement-- a person who will be in charge of our entire school district-- but left the entire decision to Superintendent Madak alone--- never even had one meeting about it-- it seems that their faith in his grasp of what our district needs is very strong.

(By the way, I also think that the Superintendent is very qualified for his position, and that he made a great decision, all by himself, about who should become director of Teaching and Learning for our entire school system. I only take exception to the fact that it was NEVER DISCUSSED IN THE LEAST, NOT IN A PUBLIC MEETING OR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, NEVER DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AT ALL and it should have been, so that we would know that our Board was representing us in this decision, which is their job. In the Board bylaws it states that only the Board can hire and fire, the Superintendent's role is limited to "recommending". I feel that the Board was derelict in their responsibility to actually discuss, vet and then hire, an employee of the District. If they are going to be a rubber-stamping School Board, thank goodness they have a highly capable person like Dr. Madak making the decisions they then rubberstamp. Except for Matt Markling, who once again asked that the Board follow the hiring process stated in their own bylaws (and who was criticized by both Mrs. Shaughnessy and Mrs. Beebe for "fomenting conspiracy theories" for merely asking that they discuss who they were going to hire-- by the way, no "conspiracy theory"--it's not a theory-- the Board is not TRANSPARENT. ) Once again, what happened when Matt asked that his fellow Board Members actually follow the legal process for the hiring of the second most important person in the District? DENIED! )

But I digress.

Knowing that the School Board has complete and total confidence in Dr. Madak, which one of them took issue with his suggestion to re-open the issue of whether we should go down to six schools at all, to the point that he or she became agitated?

Thank you so much for going to that all day meeting.

Betsy Voinovich

One of the problems of citizen involvement is that people with inadequate knowledge of the procedures can, and do, try to make something of nothing.

Ohio's sunshine law allows for executive sessions, at which certain matters can be discussed, but not voted on, and these sessions need no be public. Among the subjects that can be discussed are personnel matters. So typically the board conducts its evaluations in executive session, then votes on appointing the selected candidate at the public meeting. That is perfectly legal, and appears to be what happened here. My feeling is that discussion of the candidates in a pubic forum is a bad idea, because invariably the reasons some candidates were not chosen would then become a public record, and fewer candidates would apply, knowing that their warts and shortcomings would be put on the public record.

I have no idea why Mr. Markling is reported to be so exercised over this instance. Members are supposed to be trained on the sunshine law. Perhaps there was no executive session; perhaps there was and he missed it or forgot it; perhaps he just feels the need to burnish his populist credentials.

I think the matter of having an elementary school in the heart of the commercial district was well decided. I think the common practice is to separate the schools from the commercial district, and I can't think of another city that would intentionally put an elementary school in a commercial district, although I expect that some older shools that were originally out of the commercial district are now within a commercial district that has expanded.

Mr. Brown, I can tell you that Kristine is very knowledgeable in the laws that govern the school board and yes we all understand the sunshine law. This certain situation with the hiring of the second in charge was done with NO discussion what so ever. No discussion in executive session nor public meetings. The school board members were not aware of the hiring of Mr. G until it was a done deal. I will say I agree with the hiring, but I find it disconcerting that they was NO discussion on the school board regarding his appointment. And one last thing, this group of people doing oversight are well versed in the law, don't discount us.

Will Brown wrote:I have no idea why Mr. Markling is reported to be so exercised over this instance. Members are supposed to be trained on the sunshine law. Perhaps there was no executive session; perhaps there was and he missed it or forgot it; perhaps he just feels the need to burnish his populist credentials.

Will,

I am not sure what this discussion has to do with Bill's post but I will chime in and state that there was clearly no Sunshine Law violation on the hiring decisions in question because there was absolutely no prior board discussion, in executive session or otherwise, regarding the employment matters.

If any board member disagrees, I am sure he/she will jump in and correct me.

Matt

One of the problems of citizen involvement is that people with inadequate knowledge of the procedures can, and do, try to make something of nothing.

Mr. Brown.

There are many citizens who over the last several years who have made a huge effort to learn and understand school board rules, bylaws, and educational law whenever they can. We attend every almost every single School Board meeting, do extensive research, and ask questions to our Board directly whenever possible. In addition, I hold a Masters of Education degree. The fact is that a trusted School Board member took the time to voice concern over the procedure to hire a new principal at Grant. That action deserves attention and questioning--and it was. No one is saying that ALL discussions by elected officials should be public. It is understood that personnel issues are discussed in Executive Session and are confidential. But explain to me how it is that a School Board member learns about a new principal being appointed at the school his kids attend via letter sent home in a backpack? Really, you see nothing wrong with that?

The Phase 3 process and decision was not sound. I know that first hand because I was part of the Coordinating Council. My point is that we do have solid data, information, and knowledge to back up anything we say, write, or advocate for. Can our Board say that? Are you okay that they refused to answer for their decision to close a school (which is a big deal)? Yes, there is a balance that should exist in public decision making. Sometimes you can't discuss everything in an absolute open way--but come on. You better have a rationale for closing a school. Our Board is out of balance. Almost nothing is discussed openly.

I think the matter of having an elementary school in the heart of the commercial district was well decided. I think the common practice is to separate the schools from the commercial district, and I can't think of another city that would intentionally put an elementary school in a commercial district, although I expect that some older schools that were originally out of the commercial district are now within a commercial district that has expanded.

The area surrounding Grant Elementary is not exclusively commercial. In fact, the school is nestled behind the Board with a residential street to the west. It does not sit on any busy streets. It is very secluded. The architect appointed to evaluate Grant rated it as very safe and less of a noise issue or traffic hazard than Lincoln (and if you will remember the old McKinley was located at a very busy intersection with businesses surrounding it). One of the members of our group took it upon herself to become LEAD certified. Grant's location would gain points due to its location.

Let's remember, the area around Grant is a NEIGHBORHOOD. A very proud neighborhood with citizens who enjoy the city and being able to walk everywhere (or need to walk everywhere) and who possess a sense of community with their neighbors. The center of our city could be an educational jewel--the envy of other suburbs in our area. Why try to make every neighborhood or school the same? Or judge that it has to be a certain way to work?

The settled contract was in Oregon, Ohio:

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=12623243

Rumor has it that the majority of the Lakewood school board is set to offer substantial raises. It wouldn’t surprise me if the rumor turns to fact. It also wouldn’t surprise me if this duplicitous board keeps it all a secret.

Similar concessions in Lakewood would save 20 teaching jobs and $2 million per year. Of course , more concessions are necessary but when the LTA comes right out and says “Give us what we want or we destroy your schools” it limits our options. At least with this duplicitous bunch.

Oregon City Schools five year forecast:

http://fyf.oecn.k12.oh.us/genForecast.a ... ormat=HTML

One thing that I found interesting is that in 2007 retirement and health benefits were 36% of what was paid in salaries. In 2014 it is projected that retirement and health benefits will total 50% of salaries paid.

At that rate it won’t be long before local schools are paying more for retirement benefits than they are paying in salary. Am I the only one that sees that such contracts are unsustainable?

A timely article:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/lo ... EPI8P.html

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:We have never given up the idea of having the Board revisit their decision. They can do that now, or do they can do that when we defeat the Bond. We have continued to write, contact state & local officials, do more research, and recruit citizens of our community who believe that Lakewood must retain a school in the center of our city-- citizens who believe and understand that our current School Board (minus Mr. Markling) are not acting in good faith.

You are going to get nowhere with this board unless you are willing to hit them in the pocket book. I supported the last levy because:

1. The board made some necessary cuts that should have been made years ago. Further cuts would have damaged the quality of education. Given the complete disdain the LTA has for Lakewood I am quit sure their strategy would have been to do as much damage as possible unless they get what they want.

2. The additional money will give the board some breathing room to negotiate a sensible contract. They can start with an 8 hour work day. Who ever heard of a contract that prohibits contact with students for more than 4 hours per day?

Of course the majority of the board will simply take the success of the levy as an endorsement of their management of the district.

Unless you are willing to vote no you are endorsing their behavior.

The whole phase 3 committee was all dog and pony show. A lot of hard working and well meaning people studying an issue that had already been decided.

Bill Call wrote:Of course the majority of the board will simply take the success of the levy as an endorsement of their management of the district.

Unless you are willing to vote no you are endorsing their behavior.

Bill

Spot on. I have watched most of this board justify anything with anything. All to underline
just how right they are, always.

When a concentrated effort was put forward that Grant parents should support the levy
FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN. The board perverted that to "This underlines they
approve of us closing their school." So even though parents in the center of the city
decided to take the high road and trust them one more time. It is not just marginalized
and pooh-poohed, it is rubbed in their faces.

Certainly the residents of Lakewood and parents must start to feel like Charlie Brown.

Bill Call wrote:The whole phase 3 committee was all dog and pony show. A lot of hard working and well meaning people studying an issue that had already been decided.

A very wise person once said to me. "Those that depend on trickery will be undone by it."

Will Brown wrote:One of the problems of citizen involvement is that people with inadequate knowledge of the procedures can, and do, try to make something of nothing.

Certainly one of the biggest problems with public discourse. But a very small price to pay.
The truth shall set us free. One of the very real aspects of this project is what many call
"self centering" it is what Wikipedia, The Human Genome Project, and others have accepted
and embraced.

Will Brown wrote:I have no idea why Mr. Markling is reported to be so exercised over this instance. Members are supposed to be trained on the sunshine law. Perhaps there was no executive session; perhaps there was and he missed it or forgot it; perhaps he just feels the need to burnish his populist credentials.

Will

Not sure of his populist credentials, but I am pretty sure he just won an award for being one
of the top lawyers if not top in his field in Ohio. I think that field is "School law?" "Public
entity law?" I have this funny feeling he knows this Sunshine law thing pretty good. I have
seen pages of his recent efforts in public record requests, and believe me he has that down
too.

What I find odd is ANY public official openly fighting transparency and accountability. In this
era, anyone running for office would fall through the floor with the public stance of "We
do not have to answer to the public on that." or "I fought their right to get public records,
and even called and threatened them." And well they should.

The only thing more insane than a public official doing that, is a citizen standing for that.

We have the right to see everything. While we might not choose to do it, and we might
only have a committee handle it and trust them. We always have the right to ask and see
and understand, and be explained to no matter how slow and dumb we are, or they
think we are.

I mean are we to believe "Excellence and Accountability" was just some carny campaign
slogan to get more money. Go figure.

.