Riverside Info » About Riverside

Letter by D208 board member fuels outrage

(20 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by CuriousResident
  • Latest reply from idic5
  1. chrisrobling
    Member

    From the RB Landmark:
    3/27/2007 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
    Candidates cry foul over RB High School mailing
    Challengers claim PR piece meant to influence elections

    By BOB SKOLNIK

    Three candidates for the Riverside-Brookfield High School District 208 school board who are challenging the three incumbents are crying foul over an eight-page slick, colorful mailing by the district that began to land in residents' mailboxes last weekend.

    The professionally prepared mailing which cost nearly $8,000 in taxpayer money to prepare and mail out is headlined "Another Banner Year!" It features colorful photographs of RB students and articles extolling the accomplishments of RB High School. It also includes, most controversially, a short article headlined "Happy together: School Board, administration, and teachers union enjoy unique relationship," which the challengers say can be interpreted as an attempt to support the three incumbent school board members running for reelection.

    "I consider it to be contrived, self-serving and obviously political, and if we get elected this kind of thing is not going to happen," said Riverside resident Christopher Robling, who is running for the District 208 school board. Robling is working as a team with fellow Riversiders James Marciniak and David Hilpp.

    Running for reelection are school board President Larry Herbst of Riverside, and incumbents Marty Crowley and Sue Kleinmeyer, both of Brookfield. Also running are Frank West and MariAnn Leibrandt of Brookfield. There are four seats on the board that will be filled at the general election April 17.

    Herbst is quoted in the four-paragraph item extolling the relationship between the board, administration and union. The mailing also quotes Doug Schultz, a math teacher at RB and the president if the teachers union, saying "[w]e know a good thing when we have it. We have a great mix of people."

    The teachers union has just recently voted to endorse the three incumbents, and no one else, in the school board race.

    Robling, Hilpp and Marciniak questioned the timing of the mailing and feared that it was an attempt to influence the school board election.

    "This is reminiscent of the mailing we got prior to the referendum," said Marciniak referring to a similar mailing sent out at taxpayer expense in 2006 shortly before the vote on the nearly $58 million referendum that passed and is funding RB current renovation and expansion project that is about to begin.

    "Exactly the same deal, things are great, we're all holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,'" Marciniak added. "I can't say that this is at all unexpected. I just didn't expect to see it this early. I thought it would show up later to try and avoid any response from the community to this mailing."

    Marciniak, Robling and Hilpp favored last year's referendum, but claim that they are better qualified to help oversee the project.

    The PR piece cost District 208 $7,885 according to District 208 Business Manager John Gibson.

    Superintendent/Principal Jack Baldermann estimated that the district mailed out approximately 9,000 copies to District 208 households.
    (Article continues to conclusion...) #####

    Comment:

    Don -- The article above ran before the 2007 election, not after, as you said. It took me about five minutes to locate. If you were going to attack someone, why did you not check your facts?

    All three of us joined in it, not two of us -- as you said -- after the other was elected. I take back not one word and I am proud of attacking that abuse. Tellingly, with Jim Marciniak on the Board, it did no such mailing this year.

    You are also wrong about the certificates. The certificates are the responsibility of the teaching or administrative professional. The professional (referred to in the business as, "Illinois certified staff," by the way) works with both offices, regional and Springfield. The procedure for teacher and administrative certification and re-certification are explicit, well known and easily followed. 99 percent of Illinois certified staff never has a problem with its certification.

    The official documents available still at the Landmark web site in the Baldermann case show clearly Jack Baldermann's five attempts to earn re-certification for himself in his year of non-certification. Five attempts by Mr Baldermann himself personally in one year, after other notices of expiration, etc. show that he knew quite well that he was not certified and was trying to become re-certified. So, you are wrong in sluffing Jack Baldermann's responsibility for knowing he was not certified onto Mr Flowers, who acts in this matter on our behalf according to statute as a record keeper, not a policeman.

    As for Pasarella, I have not seen his documents. But what your "different take" does not encompass is that if John Pasarella is not certified, then he cannot legally be employed in an Illinois public school district. That is not my language, or Bob Skolnick's, or Larry Herbst's, or Senator Cronin's, or Secretary Duncan's, it is the language of the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the Illinois State Board of Education. It is binding law. ISBE balances this by providing Mr Pasarella and Mr Baldermann with straightforward means by which to remain employable, i.e., re-certification.

    So you were wrong about who attacked the publicly-funded mailer, and you were wrong about when we did so, and you were wrong about certification, and you were wrong about Jack Baldermann's awareness of his certification. As for the rest, I think considerable ground exists on which to suggest your other assertions may also be wrong as well.

    I agree with you I have always heard good things about John Pasarella and he seems to be a good fit, but that does not matter if he cannot legally be employed.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 8, 2009 18:01 #
  2. spatny
    Member

    Chris - I was referring to stuff that appeared on your web site AFTER the election, not before. I don't remember what that site was called, and it could be it was something you wrote somewhere else. Wasn't there some talk about sueing which later went away?

    I didn't ask you to take back anything. I think this - and the salary questions - should be left to the new school board to sort out. I'm simply pointing out that this seems to be a moving target type of thing, first Jack, then Scanlon, then Passarella, then Board members...it sure has the look of evening up the score. If it is possible if someone sends in what he thinks fulfills the qualifications and the reply goes back to him through another office there is room for error. The stuff that I have seen on the websites does not look clear to me.

    Once upon a time one of those offices that deals with teacher credentials - I think it was in Waukegan - lost my wife's credential and we had a long and involved process to get it cleared up, and while they were trying to do that they issued her something called, I think, an Emergency Credential, and she taught while they were straightening out their own error. I seem to remember it took a year to resolve that. When you cite that they were going back and forth to get it straight it shows me that no one was trying to perform a job they were unqualified for except technically due to something taking longer than it should.

    I was personally present when allegations were loudly proclaimed and then later simply died away when proven to have no validity whatsoever, and so I hate to see these anonymous (again!) people piling on in the newspapers and elsewhere when the matter of what the situation really is is cloudy, at best. Again, like Mr. Scanlon, I think Mr. Pasarella is a highly valued member of the RBHS team.

    Anyway - you know what I'm getting at.

    Posted Wednesday Apr 8, 2009 18:40 #
  3. CuriousResident
    Member

    Mr Robling,

    I'm curious, are you saying...

    As for Pasarella, I have not seen his documents. But what your "different take" does not encompass is that if John Pasarella is not certified, then he cannot legally be employed in an Illinois public school district. That is not my language, or Bob Skolnick's, or Larry Herbst's, or Senator Cronin's, or Secretary Duncan's, it is the language of the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the Illinois State Board of Education. It is binding law. ISBE balances this by providing Mr Pasarella and Mr Baldermann with straightforward means by which to remain employable, i.e., re-certification.

    ...that if you were on the board you would not consider the context, or the person, and simply follow the letter of the law (and remove him until re-certified)?

    Posted Wednesday Apr 8, 2009 19:03 #
  4. Catherine
    Member

    Mirror, mirror on the wall...

    Posted Wednesday Apr 8, 2009 19:36 #
  5. Flight
    Member

    Eric - My concern with Mr. Balderman's alleged affair has nothing to do with infidelity, it is that he supposedly made the extremely stupid decision to do it with a someone he supervises. It exposed the school district and taxpayers to huge liability.

    Additionally, Mr. Balderman promulgated the scam that pushed kids to take AP classes so that RB gets rated higher in Newsweek. Objectively did that exercise increase learning? It appears that a bunch of kids took courses and tests without any regard to whether they understood the material or actually passed. Compare Lyons Township AP pass/fail rate and also LT's ACT scores of 24 vs 22.5.

    How difficult could it be to maintain your certification? I am a real estate broker. I have to take courses and a test every 2 years along with submitting the paperwork. At some points it may seem like a meaningless exercise but it is something I must do in order to practice real estate in Illinois. My point was not that you would immediately fire that individual for not having the certification but having it in their contract would be grounds for termination. That would have cut down on some of Mr. Balderman's bargaining power to extract a better package on his way out.

    Teachers unions and administrators have pushed for these certifications to limit the available pool of candidates for these jobs. If some leniency is in order for the person or situation should not the taxpayers and school districts be allowed some leniency in hiring qualified individuals for these positions?

    Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009 06:56 #
  6. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Catherine: to what does your mirror, mirror comment refer?

    Thanks,
    Chris

    Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009 09:59 #
  7. chrisrobling
    Member

    To Curious Resident: Thanks for the question.

    When a Chicago commissioner of elections in the early 1990s, I had the privilege of sitting as a member of the Chicago electoral board, an administrative panel with statutory authority to conduct hearings on certain matters under the Illinois election code. Our decisions were binding on the parties, but the parties could appeal our decisions to the county division of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

    We were bound by the usual sources of law you can imagine, but 99.9 percent of what we decided was based on the Illinois election code and established interpretations thereof by the courts above us. We applied the law to the facts established before us, provided a decision and let the parties get on with their primary activity.

    It was then, Curious Resident, that I learned the importance of not substituting our judgment for that of the legislatures, Governors, judges and justices who had come before. We were quasi-judicial administrators, analogous to administrative law judges. Our job was to clarify issues and decide cases. If facts established showed a clear need to interpret what the statutes or precedents said, we did so as narrowly as possible, with the greatest deferense possible, because we were the lowest rung on the legal ladder. Binding change in the law would come from above, not us. This advanced the policy objectives of uniformity and predictability.

    In the hypothetical you describe, with no reference to John Pasarella or anyone we know, assuming all other parts equal, I would expect that the Superintendent should clarify his or her next step by referring the ISBE / ROE paperwork to his/her attorney and consulting with counsel. Please note that school superintendents have even less authority to change laws. When it comes to Illinois statute, what is written is what they must do. They are purely administrative.

    To me, when the Illinois State Board of Education writes a letter saying person X 'may not legally be employed by a public school district in Illinois,' I suspect one is headed to an administrative suspension without pay or benefits pending resolution of the underlying impairment, with leave to terminate if necessary. I emphasize I am not referring to anyone in particular. In the spirit of this forum I answer because you asked.

    Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009 10:09 #
  8. EricSundstrom
    Member

    Too true Flight.I have had clients of mine sued in the past, by exgirlfriends/boyfriends that had an extreme case of sour grapes after their respective breakups.

    Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009 10:23 #
  9. CuriousResident
    Member

    Thanks for the answer Mr Robling.

    For me, I struggle with the black and white approach to this...

    I understand, it's the law! More specifically, it is the letter of the law here.

    I have no interest in fostering anarchy, but I keep thinking about the intent of the certification (which I would expect is) "to verify that the people in these roles are capable".

    So, how does that lapse in compliance *really* affect the students and staff. The re-certification is about booking continuing education hours...which *can be* nothing more than "filler" classes!

    If we know these folk have achieved the original certification, they are performing their job in a manner we are happy with, and we know that this is a paper technicality...IMO our board should use judgment of the situation, not just blindly follow the law. Granted this should not go on forever. The system is the system...get it back in compliance, but don't hurt the school/students over a technicality.

    Based on the comments here and on the papers (Landmark and Suburbanlife), it appears I'm simply in the minority on this~

    Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009 16:17 #
  10. idic5
    Member

    my view- This case is more complex, has more history and context, and is probably about more than simply re-certification. flight's post above alludes to some of the other stuff. but the re-certification requirement IS there.

    Posted Thursday Apr 9, 2009 22:54 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.