Across the Board - Clarkston

"Stealth" Community Hearing 4/22/13 at 6 PM at CJHS - Clarkston Schools

2013-04-22T04:32:00.002-04:00

The district finally sent out the following notice on Thursday, 4/18/13, via the "e-blast" system, but I am not sure under which notice system because I am signed up for all of the CCS e-blasts and I only received one copy of it (normally, if it were dispatched under each e-blast forum, I would receive each copy). I will guess that few people received this. The district also did not post it as an event that will occur on Monday on the Clarkstoncalendar.org website. As I suspected, the district doesn’t want people to see this notice nor show up to this meeting… Please attend to express your opinion.

“Clarkston Community Schools

Friends of CCS:

On Monday, April 22 at 6:00 p.m. at the Clarkston Junior High's Performing Arts Center, the Board of Education will host a community hearing on next year's budget. As you are likely aware, the School District faces a $3.8 million deficit due to a number of factors, including decreasing state and federal revenues, decreased enrollment, and increased costs. As we develop the budget, our focus is on achieving our district’s vision, mission, and learner profile for every child we serve.

The Administration has recommended to the Board a number of budget reductions and revenue enhancements designed to meet the budget parameters established by the Board. In response, the Board has asked the Administration to consider additional items. Here is a partial list of potential revenue enhancements and budget reductions:

Limited open enrollment in grades K-2 (Administrative Recommendation, no transportation provided, limited by space available) (Open school of choice)

Operating a charter school offsite (Administrative Recommendation)

Increased sharing of staff with private schools (Administrative Recommendation)

Privatizing some services (Board inquiry)

Cutting or reducing transportation (Board inquiry)

At Monday’s hearing, the Administration will provide a brief overview of the budget and suggested changes. Following this, community members are invited to share with the Board and Administration their thoughts on the Budget. Board members and administrators will not respond at the meeting to comments from community members. Each community member will have two minutes to speak.

Community members are also welcome to send questions or suggestions via email directly to me (rdrock@clarkston.k12.mi.us).

As the superintendent of schools and as an advocate for public education, local control, our children, and our community, I encourage you to contact lawmakers in Lansing and ask them to carefully reconsider the cuts they have recommended in next year’s budget for public schools. Your opinions matter.

Thanks for your time,

Rod Rock, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools

rdrock@clarkston.k12.mi.us
248-623-5400 http://www.clarkston.k12.mi.us"

Cheryl McGinnis "spin" of concerns about her behavior at the 4/8/13 board meeting

2013-04-22T03:45:00.000-04:00

See below for an email exchange between Cheryl McGinnis, president of the Clarkston Community School Board, and me (Dawn Schaller). Please read it completely. As of Monday, 4/22/13 at 3:30 AM, she has not yet responded to the email from Friday.

From: Dawn Schaller
To: "Cheryl McGinnis" <cmcginnis@clarkston.k12.mi.us>
Cc: hyers@clarkston.k12.mi.us, eganee@clarkston.k12.mi.us, chamilton@clarkston.k12.mi.us, pattersonj@clarkston.k12.mi.us, boatmans@clarkston.k12.mi.us, lieblangr@clarkston.k12.mi.us, "Dr. Rod Rock" <rdrock@clarkston.k12.mi.us>, "Heidi McClain" <mcclaihs@clarkston.k12.mi.us>

Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:28 PM
Subject: April 8, 2013 CCS School Board Meeting

Mrs. McGinnis,

I watched the 4/8/13 CCS School Board Meeting on UStream and was shocked to see the kind of behavior I saw at that meeting.

I found Mrs. Egan's comments to Phil Custodio, the Editor of the Clarkston News, to be totally out of line. I think that she insinuated that the editor of the local newspaper must have needed an invitation from the board or administration to attend a board meeting... Really?

I also feel that Mrs. Egan's comments directed to Craig Hamilton were accusations/insinuations that Craig Hamilton had conspired with other board members and Phil Custodio in regard to his request for information on the security badging system.

However, I found your comments about Craig Hamilton's legitimate request for information extremely unflattering and unprofessional. He is a brand new board member. Although his knowledge about board procedures may have been lacking in regard to proper protocol, I felt that your responses were of an "attack" nature and did not "fit the crime" of a simple lack of knowledge of protocol to be expected in a new board member, and certainly unprofessional. Craig did not air dirty laundry about why he wanted the information he asked for, he just asked for it. It was obvious from your comments that Craig had a security badge that was suddenly shut off. I am not aware of why Craig would have had a security badge in the first place, but when he was given the responses he was given (as discussed in the meeting) from both Dr. Rod Rock and you, I can see why he would be wondering what was going on... I feel that both you and Elizabeth aired a great deal of very dirty laundry and I believe that was very unprofessional as well.

Then, when you invited the public to report Craig's request being put forward as an action item as a violation of the Open Meetings Act because it had not been announced at least 18 hours before the meeting, right after you had announced that others had told you about their requests right before the meetings and you had accommodated THEIR requests, it makes me feel that you were inviting significant fines and/or legal trouble to the district/board. Besides, I believe that you have allowed Dr. Rock to add action items and discussion items to the board agenda (as posted to the district website and the outside door of the district Administration Building) with less than 18 hours notice in the past also. You know the saying, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? You should really live by that.

I would like to know if you believe that what you and Elizabeth Egan said at the 4/8/13 board meeting was appropriate. I would also like to know what will be done about it.

Thank you.

Dawn Schaller

From: "Cheryl McGinnis"
To: "Dawn Schaller"
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:36:39 PM
Subject: Re: April 8, 2013 CCS School Board Meeting

Thank you for contacting the Board of Education,

All board members have access to Board Operating Procedures and Bylaws 24/7 along with professional development training from Michigan School Board Association. Additionally, in my tenure as President, new board members have been provided a board member mentor to assist in their learning curve of becoming an effective board member.

Board Bylaws and Operating Procedures have been approved by the board and provide a clear process so that we can operate as an efficient board of education. Additionally, any member may request an item be put on the agenda for discussion with prior knowledge to the board president that follows our Board Bylaws and Operating Procedures. Therefore, it is unclear as to why a board member would need to spring a “surprise” Action Item on the board. As President, I have worked very hard to establish meeting norms so that all board members can anticipate how we commence the business of the district.

As always, this board values the input of our citizens. The board’s number one objective is our students and any waver from this objective naturally takes away from our effectiveness. To that end, I will continue to encourage board members to become knowledgeable of these norms so that we can continue to provide excellent policy governance for our district.

--

Cheryl McGinnis

President, Clarkston Community School Board of Education

Home of Inaugural National Green Ribbon School 2012, Clarkston High School
“If you wait to do everything until you’re sure it’s right, you’ll probably never do much of anything.” – Win Borden
______________________________________________________________________________

From: Dawn Schaller
To: "Cheryl McGinnis" <cmcginnis@clarkston.k12.mi.us>
Cc: hyers@clarkston.k12.mi.us, eganee@clarkston.k12.mi.us, chamilton@clarkston.k12.mi.us, pattersonj@clarkston.k12.mi.us, boatmans@clarkston.k12.mi.us, lieblangr@clarkston.k12.mi.us, "Dr. Rod Rock" <rdrock@clarkston.k12.mi.us>, "Heidi McClain" <mcclaihs@clarkston.k12.mi.us>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:44:17 PM
Subject: Re: April 8, 2013 CCS School Board Meeting

Mrs. McGinnis,

You did not even remotely answer ANY of my questions/concerns.

Also, there was only one e-blast notice sent out to the public, although there are 31 separate CCS Groups that each should have received the notice. That does not exude "transparency".

The district's website has no reference to the 6 PM meeting start except on the agenda.

The scheduled meeting information on the Board's web page says the meeting starts at 7 PM.

The agenda for the 4/22/13 meeting is on the website, but the board packet is suspiciously absent. Please ensure that Dr. Rock has Heidi load the board packet today.

I am tremendously disappointed in the district's poor communication to the public.

I still invite your response to my comments below.

Thank you.

Dawn Schaller

__

I will say that sometime after my last email to Mrs. McGinnis at 3:44 PM on Friday, 4/19/13, and before Saturday evening, the district FINALLY loaded the board packet and corrected the board meeting time of 6 PM on the district website. However, there were to be no further notifications to the public about the meeting. So much for the "transparency" Dr. Rock claimed he would have on this subject. Shame on Dr. Rock.

Lack of transparency for 4/22/13 CCS board meeting from Dr. Rod Rock

2013-04-17T20:27:00.000-04:00

Dr. Rod Rock, Superintendent of the Clarkston Community School District, is back to his old tricks of trying to keep the public from finding out about massive possible negative changes to the district. Read his email to school board members on 4/16/13 in red below and then see my comments below that.

"Board Members:

I have confirmed the CJHS PAC at 6:00 for our community hearing on Monday. As we discussed yesterday, this will begin with a presentation from administration regarding the areas of focus, our recommendation, and the effects on education followed by input from community members.

As we progress toward this meeting, I respectfully request that you refrain from inviting your friends and neighbors to attend the meeting. We will e-blast a note, I have notified the newspaper, and we will use other means to inform our community. An authentic audience will emerge and let us know how they feel about these important issues. I think that we can all agree on the need for us to hear the true concerns of our community and, given the importance of these issues, those who truly have a stance will come forward.

I thank you for considering my request.

Rod"

The school board discussed the following proposals at the 4/15/13 school board meeting and they will have a public discourse on them at 6 PM (before the regular meeting at 7 PM) on Monday, 4/22/13 at the Clarkston Junior High School.

Proposals include:

• Limited open enrollment in grades K-2; (Schools of Choice)

• Chartering a school at an off-district location – an administration recommendation;

• Privatizing custodial, maintenance, or transportation services – not a recommendation of the administration; and

• Elimination of transportation, also not a recommendation of the administration.

As of 48 hours after the meeting and more than 24 hours after the email was sent to board members:

The 6 PM meeting notice is not on the district website,
there is no reference on the district website ANYWHERE letting the public know that the district is considering these extreme measures,
there have been no "e-blasts" sent out about the meeting, and
the Clarkston News goes to press on Monday evenings (after the meeting) and is published on Wednesdays, delivered on Thursdays, allowing very little notice to the public for the Monday meeting.
I have no idea what Dr. Rock plans to use in order to "use other means to inform our community". We have seen his patented rantings in his "Superintendent's Column" that have been broadcasted in the Clarkston News, via "e-blasts", and posted on the district website, but that communication device is surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) absent.

This is wrong! Let your neighbors know about this and be at the meeting.

Public hearing on school budget and School of Choice in Clarkston Schools

2013-04-17T19:57:00.000-04:00

Available here: http://www.clarkstonnews.com/Articles-News-i-2013-04-17-251102.113121-sub14473.113121-Public-hearing-on-school-budget.html

"Public hearing on school budget"

By Phil Custodio
"April 17, 2013 - The public will have a chance to address proposals to close a $3.8 million school budget deficit, 6 p.m., April 22.

The meeting was scheduled for Clarkston Junior High School off Waldon Road, starting with a presentation of the administration's budget recommendations.

"It was the consensus of the board to provide full public transparency to our community regarding the administration's recommendation as we look to take action on these cuts," said board President Cheryl McGinnis.

Proposals include:

• Limited open enrollment in grades K-2;

• Chartering a school at an off-district location – an administration recommendation;

• Privatizing custodial, maintenance, or transportation services – not a recommendation of the administration; and

• Elimination of transportation, also not a recommendation of the administration.
"It is important our community know all options to the board whether recommended by administration or not," McGinnis said. "Board members felt it was important that the community had the full picture before the board not just a snap shot therefore, additional items not currently recommended by administration will be discussed."

Open enrollment would offset losses in enrollment and allow the housing market to expand locally, bringing more students in to the district, said Superintendent Dr. Rod Rock. Administration's recommendation is for one year, followed by reevaluation;

Administration is also looking at other alternatives at the request of the board, Rock said.

Administration's plan to eliminate the $3.8 million deficit includes up to 13 teacher layoff from the budget and through attrition, a $750,000 cut. Layoffs are scheduled for discussion and approval at the April 22 school board meeting, following the public hearing; $200,000 transferred from the Early Childhood Center budget fund equity; $250,000 in At Risk funding from the state; $60,000 cut from facilities and transportation; $1.25-$1.5 million cut from human resources; and $73,000 in non-personnel cuts.

New revenue in the plan includes $100,000 from Community Education; $300,000-$800,000 in partnerships with private schools; $141,000-$708,000 from open enrollment; and $100,000-$250,000 from possible partnership with a local charter academy.

Administration's proposals for open enrollment and partnerships with private and charter academies is expected to bring in from $541,000-$1.76 million, total. If the school board rejects those proposals, layoffs and other cuts would have to be deeper, Ryan said.

For more information, call 248-623-5408."

It is key that as many people as possible attend the meeting on Monday, April 22, 2013. The CCS School Board will be discussing critical potential changes due to the financial crisis the school district is in.

They will be considering opening up the Clarkston school district to open schools of choice (SOC) for all of the elementary schools in grades K - 2. Students allowed into the district through this program would have to be Oakland County residents. Once allowed in, they would be allowed to remain in the district until they graduate, even if SOC only runs one year (those students would be grandfathered in).

There are other financial options being looked at that may/will affect education and/or the safety of the children in the district, so it is critical that as many people as possible attend the meeting and hopefully express their opinion of these potential changes.

Although School Board President, Cheryl McGinnis, said, "It was the consensus of the board to provide full public transparency to our community regarding the administration's recommendation as we look to take action on these cuts,", "it is important our community know all options to the board whether recommended by administration or not," and "board members felt it was important that the community had the full picture before the board not just a snap shot therefore, additional items not currently recommended by administration will be discussed," The 4/15/13 Board meeting video has not been posted to the district website, I have yet to see a "public notice" of the 4/22/13 meeting, no mention at all on the district's website, and there have been no ClarkstonCalendar.org "e blasts" sent out by the district either. How is THAT "full public transparency to our community"? It is NO TRANSPARENCY TO OUR COMMUNITY.

CCS HR Director resigns...

2013-04-04T03:47:00.001-04:00

CCS HR Director resigns...

The current “Executive” HR Director did not qualify for the job as it was posted initially for “HR Director”. I have the job posting for the "Director of Human Resources" position when it was initially posted after the previous HR Director announced she would retire. Once she decided to put her hat in the ring for the job however, the job posting was changed to lower the requirements and it looks to me like it was worded to ensure that she got the job, which she did (surprise, surprise!). I have copies of both job postings, her resume, and the rest of the applicants resumes from my FOIA requests, so I know… In my opinion, all of the other candidates' qualifications surpassed her qualifications. Her hiring/promotion was “sold” to the school board by then superintendent, Dr. Al Roberts, as a way to “retain a valued employee (she had been the public relations director) whose job was being eliminated” and to give her “an opportunity to grow into the job”. Is that what a large school system should be doing with a position as important as the Human Resources Director?

This happened under Dr. Robert's administration and it was his choice to decide who got the job. She did not have a Master's degree in HR as the original job posting required. She didn’t even have a Bachelor's degree in HR (her Bachelors was in Public Relations). For HR education, all she had was a couple of classes... At one Board meeting she advised that she successfully handled HR for one or more of her husband’s companies - Aaron Banach Enterprises, Polestar Construction of Michigan, Polestar Construction of Florida, Polestar Marine Energy, Inc., and/or Polestar Energy. I don't deny that she probably DID do some HR work and get involved with some contracts while working with her husband’s companies. I don’t know a lot about those companies, but I know they are not school systems and doubt they dealt with complex, high dollar union contracts. At CCS School Board meetings, she brought “contracts” forward to the board for approval that consisted of just the alterations to previous or current contracts (not the whole contracts with updates) and she did not provide the existing contracts to the board. When the board members asked for the entire contract with the changes noted on them because they had no way to check the contracts, I remember her telling the board that this was the way she handled contracts for her husband’s company and besides, there wasn't time for that - they could look them up… Yikes! I also recall that when the board requested that she have the district’s attorneys check over and approve contracts before they were presented to them for approval, she argued that it was not necessary. REALLY!?!?

Dr. Rock advised me that he promoted her to the “Executive” HR Director” (from HR Director) last year. I never saw any announcement, but I noticed the change on the district's organization chart. Dr. Rock apparently wanted to give her a hefty raise with the promotion while the rest of the employees had no raises for several years or huge pay cuts with no raises for several years. This action was politically charged and did nothing good for Dr. Rod Rock, nor the “Executive” HR Director (who lobbied very hard to the board for her raise during one highly charged board meeting). At school board meetings where the proposed “Master Agreement for Directors and Supervisors” contract was being discussed, Rod Rock danced around the subject of how much the “Executive” HR Director would be paid. He never answered the questions. Then certain Rod Rock Rubber stamp board members attacked the board members who were asking the questions by saying they were “not supporting the Directors and Administrators in the district” and addressed their questions and concerns as “micromanaging”.

According to the board packet from the 3/25/13 school board meeting (available here) in which the HR Director’s resignation was on the personnel changes part of the agenda, her salary was referenced as $91,150.00 (as it should have been under her employment contract as "HR Director"), but the “Master Agreement for Directors and Supervisors” contract reflected that her position, identified as “CO Exec Dir” had the following base salary levels:

“level 1 (first year) - $105,901 (16.1% increase),
level 2 (second year) - $108,924, (19.5% increase),
level 3 (third year) - $112,300 (23.2% increase),
level 4 (fourth year) - $116,009 (27.3% increase),
and level 5 (fifth year or higher) - $118,699” (30.2% increase).

The board members could not get a confirmation as to what salary level she would fall under... Would it based on the year she became the HR director, the year she "earned" her promotion to "Executive HR Director", or once the contract was approved in 2013? The contract was approved by the board at the 02/04/13 meeting and is available here on the 02/04/13 board packet (pages 38 to 63).

The board discussion from the meetings regarding the contract was captured by Dr. Rock's secretary on the minutes of the 1/21/13 and 2/4/13 board meetings. Those comments are available on pages 6 and 12 of the minutes from the 1/21/13 and 2/4/13 board meetings that are on the 02/25/13 school board meeting board packet available here.

Anita Banach is leaving the district to be the Director of Personnel Services for Macomb Community College (approved by the MCCC board on 3/19/13). She will be working much closer to home and it appears to be a nice job improvement for her.

Her apparent last act as the HR director in CCS was pushed through the school board on 3/25/13. Time will tell how much of a good or bad thing it was. However, it may end up costing the district more than the $2 million dollar OOPS! that she had on the medical benefits miscalculation this year. It is on pages 114 to 119 of the 3/25/13 school board packet (available here) and consists of an Agency Fee Agreement for each of the following employee contract groups:

Clarkston Education Association

Clarkston Office Personnel Association

Clarkston Transportation Association

Clarkston Custodial Association

Clarkston Paraeducators Association

My understanding is that the Agency Fee Agreement was put in place to keep the "Agency Shop" (read: union shop) resulting in the employees having to pay dues to the union through June 30, 2016. Because Michigan officially became a "right to work state" on 3/28/13, no employment contracts signed 3/28/13 or later can no longer have a mandate that workers belong to a union in order to work for the employer. However, what Mrs. Banach brought forward for the board to approve was just the "Agency Fee Agreements" for each of the union contracts and not the whole labor agreements because they have not yet been negotiated. There was discussion at the meeting that this was a deliberate "bypass" of the right-to-work law and that the district may end up forfeiting operating funds for signing these "contracts" (that are not the whole contract) two days before the RTW law went into effect. Wow... Just wow!

$2 million mistake - self-insuring medical benefits for Clarkston Schools

2013-03-25T03:55:00.000-04:00

I was advised by an anonymous commenter about the impact of the Clarkston Community Schools switching from an insurance carrier for medical benefits to being self-insured. Here is the comment received on 2/20/13:

"Rumor has it the Ex Dr of HR for the 2nd year in a row has under estimated the cost of self insuring. If that's true , think she deserves a raise or a pay cut? I'm sure she would tell you it's somehow the employees fault!"

I decided to look into the claim and researched it using the district's previously posted school board board packets.

The Executive Director of Human Resources, Anita Banach, underestimated the cost of health insurance for the CCS district employees to the tune of $2 million for the 2012/13 school year by talking the school board into "self-insuring" their medical insurance. The district will be carrying forward a $2.4 million deficit into the 2013/14 school year as a result.

Recently she had been lobbying for (and apparently received) a huge pay increase based on Dr. Rod Rock giving her a promotion from Director of Human Resources to Executive Director of Human Resources. This appears to be rather poor performance for an "Executive Director of Human Resources".

CCS Open School of Choice Discussion Information

2013-03-25T03:13:00.000-04:00

Here is the district's justification for Open School of Choice per the board packet for the 3/25/13 CCS school board meeting:

Please read this over and if you have any concerns, please come to the school board meeting on Monday, 3/25/13 at 7 PM and voice those concerns. The meetings are held at the Clarkston Community Schools Administration Building, 6389 Clarkston Road, Clarkston, MI.

Challenge:
To offset the loss of Clarkston Community Schools student enrollment, along with the associated reductions in CCS programming for 2013-14 school year and beyond

Response:
Proposal of limited schools of choice option for
2013-14 school year
• Kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades only
• 100 students maximum (no more than 50 students at any one grade level)
• Section 105 (within Oakland County only)

Facts:
• Need to reduce total of $3-$3.5 million for 2013-14 budget
• Goal to achieve through reductions, employee concessions and revenue enhancements
• Each student loss = loss of $7,082
• 2012-13 loss of students = $509,904 (72 fewer students x $7,082)
• Limited enrollment option offers opportunity to bring in current out-of-district Early Childhood Center students
• Viable option for neighboring families who wish to attend CCS
• Those who come in early adapt well and will stay as Clarkston students
• Not at capacity throughout district; can accommodate numbers across all K-2 classrooms
• All 28 districts in Oakland County are participating in or considering some form of open enrollment/schools of choice
• Oakland County is a very competitive environment
• Overall number of school-aged children in county is decreasing (SEMCOG data)
• Plan to annually review enrollment trends, actual numbers and additional data to analyze overall SOC option and viability for future
• Each School of Choice (SOC) student = $7,082 (or amount of resident district allocation if less than Clarkston)
• 100 SOC students = approximately $700,000
• Addition to aggressive Shared Services Partnership Program
• CCS programs suffer with loss of students

SOC Rules:
• Propose to accept up to 100 students, Kindergarten - 2nd grade
• No more than 50 students per any grade level
• Can specify availability per grade level and building
• Priority:
   o In-district school of choice & employees' children (already allowed SOC students, not a new group of students)
   o Out-of-district school of choice - sibling already enrolled in current SOC program
   o All other out-of-district school of choice
• Applications accepted minimum of 15 days and maximum of 30 days
• Accept all applicants if numbers do not exceed available spots (including students that have been suspended or expelled in the last two years????)
• Random draw and waiting list if applicants exceed available spots
• District MAY refuse enrollment based on suspensions (past 2 years) or expulsions (MAY?)
• Continuous enrollment through graduation (this means that as soon as the students are enrolled, they are enrolled until they graduate or they leave the district of their own volition, so there is no going back to the way it is now)
• Enrollment must take place by end of first week of school
• Transportation not required - with exception of SOC students who may become homeless
• Foundation Allowance received = lesser of CCS and resident district

Timelines:
• March 25: Presentation to Board
• March 26 - April 7: Collect feedback/questions/concern (Easter break is March 29th to April 7th SURPRISE! The district will "collect feedback/questions/concern" while they are not working and the public cannot reach administration??? That leaves three days for feedback - March 26th to March 28th, but no likely way to communicate this to the public and get feedback in that timeframe).
• April 8-22: Board "retreat" w/administrator and community input re: SOC and other options (Since the Board retreats are not filmed or broadcasted on Comcast or the district's UStream account, this conveniently results in the public not knowing what is discussed unless they were able to attend the meeting)
• TBD: Board Vote on SOC Proposal
• Pending SOC Approval: Communication/marketing plan re: SOC options (print, media, etc.)
• TBD: Staffing and placement determinations
• August 1: Final staffing placement
• TBD: Advertisement of SOC openings, application deadline, final notifications

Considerations:
• Student loss trends
• Competitive county environment
• Community reaction
• August (or earlier) deadlines
• Potential staff increases
• Placement hierarchy
• Priority of placement
• Special education needs (historically, students with special needs/behavioral issues have been highly represented in the students who request SOC placement, increasing the costs to support those students in the "new" school district, potentially overwhelming the new school's special education staff, resulting in lowered MEAP scores, and more behavioral issues in the "new" school)
• Lower class sizes/fewer reductions
• Communication plan; alignment with requirements & timelines

Do YOU want Open Enrollment in Clarkston Schools?

2013-03-20T14:05:00.001-04:00

How do you feel about the fact that Open Enrollment is being considered in Clarkston Schools again?

It will be discussed at the Board of Education meeting on Monday, March 25, 2013 at 7 PM.

Please come to the meeting and express your opinion.

Open vehicle for comments

2012-12-17T12:54:00.001-05:00

This is an open vehicle for comments by the public about anything. I will check out anything. Feel free to leave anonymous comments.

Dawn

Failed refi of Clarkston School bond

2012-12-13T21:36:00.002-05:00

12/13/12 CCS school blast message about the failure of the school bond refinance.

Although Rod Rock has a doctorate in education, apparently, elementary level math was never one of his better subjects.

The following eblast sent out on 12/13/12 from Dr Rod Rock says the State of Michigan denied the Clarkston Community School District the ability to refinance the existing district bond debt and the School Bond Loan Fund and as a result, the Clarkston school district taxpayers will not be able to save $30 million dollars plus. The press release (the link below) says the amount of the savings would have been "over $15 million". An anonymous poster advised me of the 100% variance so I have updated it here... Maybe Dr. Rock's pet educational ideas of "Project Zero" and "Culture of Thinking" failed him... Maybe he "thought" $15 million + was equivalent to $30 million +...

Maybe someone who "thinks" that fuzzily should not be in charge of a budget of around $90 million a year...

CCS-Clarkston Community Schools

Friends of CCS:

As you're probably aware, the Clarkston Community Schools, as good stewards of the community's resources, was attempting to refinance our School Bond Loan Fund and other debt, which was used to construct/update our school buildings and approved via voter referenda. Through an unfortunate set of circumstances--at no fault of our own--we were unable to complete the transaction, as planned. The school district should not experience any adverse effects to its budget as a result. The debt millage rate will remain at the present rate and taxpayers will not realize a $30+ million savings, at this time. We are working to resolve this issue with the state and we remain hopeful that we will eventually make the savings a reality for taxpayers.

Here is a link to a press release that provides some additional details:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oAPFGwrNMYv8rgltpqcDMnoX29rPQ8r9BhJNeddPzyo/edit

Please let me know if you have questions (rdrock@clarkston.k12.mi.us)

Rod"

Maybe the governor decided to teach Dr. Rod Rock a lesson... I wonder if Dr, Rock will learn from that lesson before he costs the taxpayers of the Clarkston Community School District more money... I wonder if he will brush up on basic mathematics...

Clarkston Community Schools Board of Education November 6, 2012 final results:

2012-11-06T23:25:00.004-05:00

Clarkston Community Schools Board of Education November 6, 2012 final results:

Joan Patterson       7,743    16.98%   6 year term re-election
Susan Boatman 7,231    15.85%   6 year term re-election
Cheryl McGinnis   7,214    15.82%   4 year term re-election
Craig Hamilton       6,746   14.79%   4 year term election
Kelli Horst               6,687    14.66%    not elected
Betty Reilly              6,250     13.70%    not elected
Theresa Adriaens   3,534       7.75% not elected

A big thank you to the voters of the Clarkston Community Schools area!

I am disappointed that the voters did not vote in sufficient numbers to elect Betty Reilly, but I believe that Craig Hamilton will be a great asset to the people of Clarkston.

The election/re-election of Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman, and Craig Hamilton will be the start of positive changes in the school district that will start in January when Craig Hamilton replaces Barry Bomier on the board!!!

Boatman, Patterson, Reilly, and Hamilton for Clarkston School Board

2012-11-05T10:15:00.000-05:00

http://www.clarkstonnews.com/Articles-Opinion-i-2012-10-31-249393.113121-sub14473.113121-Editorial.html

Clarkston News editorial from editor Phil Custodio.

"Editorial

Vote for school board reform

October 31, 2012 - Clarkston needs a new kind of school board, and we think incumbents Susan Boatman and Joan Patterson, and challengers Betty Reilly and Craig Hamilton can provide it.

This year's election is critical. Seven candidates are running for four open seats. People are concerned about what's happening on the board. It's great to have the participation of candidates who are involved and knowledgeable about the issues. We need their continued support in this community.

The school district is the Clarkston area's largest employer with the biggest budget. We depend on it to educate residents' children. Its reputation bears on the reputation of the entire area. The board decides who gets hired, promoted, disciplined, fired, where money goes, what gets bought, who teaches what.

To make the best decisions, we want them to have all the information they could possible want.

That's not happening now.

A presentation to the school board last February made crystal clear what is expected of them. They are not allowed to talk to each other, residents, school staff, or students about anything that might help them make good decisions on the board. They've even been told not to visit their own schools.

To do so, they were told, violates operational and communications processes. Everything must be done collectively at the board table. The individual must be suppressed. They were elected only to be part of a collective.

We don't see it that way. Focusing on process and collectivity makes them dependent on information provided by administration and thus vulnerable to "group think" and "closed-mindedness."

We see them as representatives of the public, just like congressional representatives, senators, and other elected officials. Some board members and administrators may look down at such a notion as lowbrow and crass, but we see it as the beauty of representative democracy.

Members of the school board are the only links in the school district chain directly hired by residents. They are our eyes and ears in the running of the school district.

So, we need to trust that school board members can do their job free and unfettered. We need people to ask questions to their neighbors, not those who are afraid of their answers.

The consequences of current policy are made clear in the failed $20 million school bond drive earlier this year.

Board members were foiled in their requests for information, and were limited in their ability to talk to residents, school officials, and students about it.

As a result of this and other missteps, the district moved forward with the drive, set a May special election at a cost of $35,000, and lost two-to-one.

If information was allowed to flow as it should, perhaps the district would have realized the public's opposition to borrowing more when already maxed out on debt.

Process is not what we need. This November, we need to elect free-thinking board members devoted to independent leadership, not process, consensus, and image.

Incumbent trustees Susan Boatman and Joan R. Patterson have demonstrated their willingness for reform. Challenger Betty Reilly led an effort opposing the bond, and challenger Craig Hamilton expressed a desire for more transparency. They deserve your vote.

–PMC"
(Phil Custodio, editor of the Clarkston News)

Unanswered questions and lack of transparency in Clarkston, MI schools - email exchange with school board president, Cheryl McGinnis

2012-10-27T21:18:00.000-04:00

Here is an email exchange I had in October 2012 with Cheryl McGinnis, the current CCS school board president who is running for re-election for the CCS School Board. As of 10/28/12, I still have not received a response back from her on the remaining issues she failed to address on 10/22/12 after my original email to her on 10/13/12. I believe that it reflects that:

Cheryl McGinnis intends to make sure that the double, non-microphoned (so not heard on the video and not heard by the attending public unless they are right next to the tables), non-recorded for the minutes, and material usually not included in the board packet roundtable discussions will continue as is, ensuring that:

The board members have no documentation of the discussions from a video or the minutes of the meetings to address what was presented to the board by administration.
The public has no idea what was presented to the board due to no documentation of the discussions from a video or the minutes of the meetings to address what was presented to the board by administration.
The board members may receive similar presentations, but the questions raised in the two different roundtables naturally results in different information/communication being given to the two groups (which also can include the public that chooses to attend the roundtable discussions).
The public will be kept totally in the dark about the discussions.

Cheryl McGinnis must support the district removing the video recordings of the contentious board meetings in which there was discussion that Administration doesn't want the public to see because she has failed to address that.
Cheryl McGinnis must support Dr. Rock violating policy by dismissing me when I was speaking during the public comment portion of the board meeting because she has failed to address that.
Cheryl McGinnis must support the district's HR director, Anita Banach, being unprofessional and getting up after I spoke and saying I was "making stuff up" because she has failed to address that.
Cheryl McGinnis must support the board illegally violating policy by refusing to allow any member of the public from addressing the board more than once during a meeting unless they are one of administration's shills (such as Kelli Horst and the other pro-$20 million bond PTA moms) because she allows it to happen and she failed to address that.
Cheryl McGinnis must support the public being given little to no ability to publicly address administration by limiting communication during regular board meetings and failing to address the fact that the district has no "public meetings" for the public to address administration.
Cheryl must support allowing the HR director getting a huge raise during the same time frame when all other employees have had either huge pay cuts and then multi-year pay freezes, or multi-year pay freezes as she is still failing to address the contract for the directors and administrators where it appears that administration intends to give the HR Director a raise of almost $15,000 a year (by giving her a promotion to "Executive" Director of HR / "CO Executive Director"), even though she used to be the public relations director, has only been doing HR for two years, does not have a Master's Degree, does not manage multiple departments, and her Bachelor's Degree is not in Business or Human Resources.

Please DO NOT return Cheryl McGinnis to the school board on November 6, 2012. Please also do not vote for Kelli Horst (puppet for Dr. Rod Rock), nor Theresa Adriaens (absentee candidate and Dr. Rock puppet wanna-be).

PLEASE DO VOTE FOR "BPR", SUSAN BOATMAN, JOAN PATTERSON, AND BETTY REILLY.

************************************************

HERE IS THE EMAIL EXCHANGE:

From: Dawn Schaller
To: Cheryl McGinnis
Cc: Steve Hyers, Barry Bomier, Elizabeth Egan, Rosalie Lieblang, Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:59:09 PM
Subject: Re: CCS 10/08/12 Board meeting and unanswered questions/concerns

Mrs. McGinnis,

I am glad to see that the district has finally decided to post the board packets on the district website again. However, I noticed that there are board meeting videos that have been removed from the district's Ustream account. The district has taken down the following board videos (removed in the last few weeks):

10/10/11 (2011 audit presentation with many questions from Lieblang, Boatman, and Patterson that were not answered),
10/24/11 ("Mrs. Patterson asked for clarification on board approval and pilot projects. Mrs. McGinnis noted there may be various “pilot-type” projects that teachers try in their classrooms. She believes the superintendent has some flexibility in allowing these projects to happen, but that curriculum changes do come before the board for approval" (denial of the need for board approval for pilots), ugly "Board goals" discussion in which Cheryl McGinnis looked bad, many questions and requests for discussion rather than action on board goals, and my comments on missing FOIA documents and missing backup documentation from the board packets),
11/28/11 (Review of Facility/Technology Planning with much discussion, Barry Bomier missing, approval of foreign language curriculum, bus purchase approval, discussions on replacement costs for student management system, discussions on FRN conference, Betty Reilly and I spoke and Dr. Rock rebutted my comments by saying, "He stated there are no improprieties on the transparency report, and he will continue to make bold statements for the students we serve." *say what??*),
12/12/11 (Dr. Rock's Capital Needs/Funding Discussion with the details of the non-qualified bond and many questions from Boatman, Lieblang, and Patterson, I commented about the missing data on the transparency report, Anita Banach got up and contradicted my statements),
2/13/12 (request from Lieblang that a discussion item be added for "District Information" be added to the agenda (3:4 - denied), reports on new format of Q2 budget with the Q2 budget, discussion on the fact that there was missing budget information and Lieblang asked for the information she had asked for several times, bond ballot language, Hyer claimed that the board does not have to approve pilots because they are not curricular changes, Mr. RJ Naughton from Stauder-Barch spoke to the board about the bond, discussion on the bond election dates, McGinnis shut Pattterson down from speaking after Hyer had a prepared speech and McGinnis called a recess, Joan then allowed to speak and she said that she was concerned about a lack of a well thought-out plan regarding technology costs, risk, and technology plan requirements. discussion on the May bond date, discussion on the meeting where the attorney for the district, Mr. George Butler, publicly ripped on certain members of the board regarding "board member conduct"),
7/9/12 (board voting on new officers in which Hyer, Bomier, McGinnis, and Egan made sure they were each officers and Lieblang, Patterson, and Boatman were not elected to officer positions, discussion on new position for grant writer, cutting back on board meetings with discussion regarding fewer dates with the guise of "saving money for the district" after spending $35,000 on the failed bond, authorizaiotn of district board memberships, appointment of Board of Education Contracted Services Representatives, board self-evaluation discussion),
8/6/12 (never filmed because the video was filmed on 8/5/12 instead in error (question mark for over three hours on the videos), capital needs vote, Board/Administrator Workshop that could not be heard - IF it had been recorded),
8/27/12 (special meeting to approve personnel changes and ugly discussion regarding the purchase of wireless technology for Clarkston High School not being on the budget).

You said, "As chair I will continue to work so that presentations at these workshops are audible and visible for the attending public." What exactly does this mean? Will you have the content of the board workshops recorded in the minutes of the meeting? Will you have microphones so the discussion can be heard on the video? Or are you saying that you are only going to be sure that "the attending public", those actually at the meeting, can hear what is being discussed?

You failed to address the HR Director, Anita Banach, getting up after I spoke and saying I "was making stuff up". If it is "unprofessional" (your words from a board meeting) for Board members to make any comments on what a public speaker has said at a meeting, how is it OK or "professional" for a district director (Anita Banach) to get up, rebut me, and basically say I was lying? By the way, I wasn't lying.

You failed to address my request regarding my concern about only allowing the public one two-minute speech when CCS Board Bylaw 0167.3, "Public Participation at Board Meetings", "Section F, clearly allows the public to speak more than once. I said, "Can you ensure that the practice of allowing members of the public to speak at board meetings be changed to reflect the state of the Board Bylaw that allows members of the public to speak for up to two minutes on any and all subjects and allows the members of the public to speak more than once on the same subject as long as all others have had a chance to speak. This would match the state of the posted Board Bylaw to reality." and you said nothing about this.

You failed to address my request about my concern about Dr. Rock interrupting and dismissing me when I spoke at the 10/8/12 meeting. I said, "Can you ensure that the school board's only direct employee, Dr. Rock, is made aware of the bylaws that only give the Board President the right to dismiss members of the public in a school board meeting?", and you said nothing about that either.

You failed to address the fact that there are no "public community hearings" in the Clarkston School System. Is it because the district doesn't want to know what the public wants and doesn't want to hear from the public?
Can you address these issues please?

Thank you.

Dawn Schaller

http://acrosstheboard-clarkston.blogspot.com/

From: Cheryl McGinnis
To: Dawn Schaller
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:13:14 PM
Subject: Re: CCS 10/08/12 Board meeting

Thank you for contacting the Board of Education.

Much time has been spent by the Superintendent reviewing the district’s capabilities of providing additional transparency to our community. Effective immediately, the board packet will be posted to the district web site. At times, there will continue to be elements of the packet that will not be available until after the board meeting for many reasons, however, this will be minimized as best possible.

We appreciate your patience during this time of the packets not being posted directly to the web site and only emailed. The board looks forward to continued evaluation of district information that can be posted for public view in addition to those that are required by law.

The board will continue to conduct it’s meetings in a format that adheres to all legal requirements while providing board members with access to information and dialogue that allows them to seek all necessary information to make decisions on behalf of the students of Clarkston. As you know, these workshops are board meetings in public and are not a community hearing. As chair I will continue to work so that presentations at these workshops are audible and visible for the attending public.

The Chair stands committed to accommodating all board members’ business and personal schedule when they communicate conflicts ahead of confirming their availability for their elected board work. I can not behold myself to anyone board member over all the others.

Regarding the 10/8/12 board meeting, during the roundtable workshop sessions; as you know I specifically asked that presenters to speak up so that our citizens could hear and I heard a confirmed “thank you”. I believe we all could work more productively for our students and community if we could stay working on what is right for kids.

As always, your comments are appreciated.

Cheryl McGinnis

President, Clarkston Community School Board of Education

Home of Inaugural National Green Ribbon School 2012, Clarkston High School

“If you wait to do everything until you’re sure it’s right, you’ll probably never do much of anything.” – Win Borden

From: Dawn Schaller
To: Cheryl McGinnis
Cc: Steve Hyers, Barry Bomier, Elizabeth Egan, Rosalie Lieblang, Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: CCS 10/08/12 Board meeting and unanswered questions/concerns

Mrs. McGinnis,

I wanted to cover a few things that happened at the 10/8/12 school board meeting with you.

As you know, I spoke at the 10/8/12 board meeting during Action Item 5.2/5.3. I discussed my opinion of the subjects of the inaudible roundtable workshop sessions (Discussion Item 6.2 of the meeting) and Action Item 5.2 (moved to 5.3), the "Supervisors and Administrators contract". Starting at 35 minutes, 59 seconds of the first video (available on the district website) and continuing until 38 minutes, 28 seconds) I had advised:

That the HR Director salary was set at around $86,000 when it was offered to the current HR Director in 2010.

That according to a FOIAed document I received last year from the district, that the HR Director's annual salary for the 2011/12 school year was $90,600.

That there was no category in either the existing or the new "Supervisors and Administrators contract" for "HR Director" or just "Central Office Director (minus the "Executive" level) at the $90,600 salary range.

That the HR Director had been calling herself the "Executive Director of Human Resources" for the past year although the board had not been asked to approve a promotion or pay raise for her.

That the only job category I could find on the contract that could have fit the HR Director was the "CO Exec. Dir" (Central Office Executive Director) job category that had a step 1 salary of $105,901, progressing to $118,699 at step 5 (year 5).

That would have meant that unless the "HR Director" job classification was just "missing" from the proposed new contract, that it appeared that the district was trying to change the job classification of the HR Director from "Director" to "Central Office Executive Director", resulting in a salary raise from $90,600 to $105,901 ($15,301 per year increase), or more if the district was going to grant second or thrird . However, the board had not been asked to approve a pay raise for the HR Director.

That the HR Director told me after a meeting in June of 2012 that she felt that she "deserved" the "CO Executive Director" salary and level.

Dr Rock then interrupted me and dismissed me from continuing my comments saying I was "making specific statements about people and I don't think that's appropriate at this time", and then when I disagreed and said I thought it WAS appropriate, he interrupted me and said "I think probably your two minutes are up" and dismissed me.

Shortly after I was dismissed by Dr. Rock and the board had discussed the issue some more, the HR Director, Anita Banach, got up to the podium at one hour, 7 minutes, 0 seconds to discuss the contract with the board. This was recorded in the meeting. She then basically said that she deserved the higher pay that the "Central Office Executive Director" position showed on the contract. She got personal against me. She specifically named me and said that I was "making stuff up". I take offense to her personal attack as I was not "making stuff up" as she said and I also consider that unprofessional of her as a school district "director". I had not attacked her personally, I had simply brought up issues regarding the salary schedule of the HR Director position on the contract that was in front of the board for approval and I stated history related to the HR Director position and pay. As much as it may have been personal for her because her pay would be personal to her, it was not a personal attack.

I have two concerns and a two requests regarding what happened when I spoke and was dismissed by Dr. Rock.

Concern 1 - According to CCS Board Bylaw 0167.3, "Public Participation at Board Meetings", "Section F., No participant may speak more than once on the same topic unless all others who wish to speak on that topic have been heard." Currently the board is refusing to allow any members of the public from speaking more than once at a meeting (unless that member of the public is Kelli Horst). What the Board Bylaw means is that members of the public have the right to speak to the board more than once at the board meetings and they can even speak on the same subject more than once after all others wishing to be heard on that subject have been heard. I was speaking on two subjects, but was limited to only one two minute speech, and there were no other members of the public who wanted to speak at the meeting, so I should have been allowed to speak twice on the two subjects and if I ran over on the time, I should have been given an opportunity to speak again to get my point across.

Request 1 - Can you ensure that the practice of allowing members of the public to speak at board meetings be changed to reflect the state of the Board Bylaw that allows members of the public to speak for up to two minutes on any and all subjects and allows the members of the public to speak more than once on the same subject as long as all others have had a chance to speak. This would match the state of the posted Board Bylaw to reality.

Concern 2 - According to CCS Board Bylaw 0167.3, "Public Participation at Board Meetings", "Section I., The presiding officer may: 1) interrupt, warn, or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant;". I do not believe that my comments were "personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant" as they were regarding the pay scale for a particular job category for the HR Director from the proposed contract that was on the agenda and the Board members had not been able to get a clear answer on this same issue from Dr. Rock during their previous discussion. The "presiding officer" of the Board meeting was you, Mrs. McGinnis, but Dr. Rock dismissed me from speaking and he had no right to dismiss me. After watching the video of this exchange from the meeting, I found that I HAD spoken beyond the two minute limit, but Dr. Rock was not the person who had the right to stop me from speaking, ONLY YOU HAD THAT RIGHT, and you didn't do it.

Request 2 - Can you ensure that the school board's only direct employee, Dr. Rock, is made aware of the bylaws that only give the Board President the right to dismiss members of the public in a school board meeting?

After Anita Banach sat down and right before the round table workshop session, Dr. Rock made a comment in which he commented about the "positive feedback regarding the roundtable discussions" (only partially true), said that several members of the board had asked for more opportunities for discussion before a vote (true), and that the round table workshop session was the way the district was allowing "discussion". That is just just wrong on so many levels. With the roundtable discussions split into two tables, the board members hear different questions and answers (resulting in incomplete interpretations) and they also result in a lack of transparency for the public and the board.

At the beginning of all of the board meetings, the president always makes the following statement:

“This meeting is a meeting of the Board of Education in public for the purpose of conducting the School District’s business and is not to be considered a public community hearing. There is a time for public participation during the meeting as indicated in agenda items 3 and 8.”

The above comments say that the board meeting is to conduct the school district's business rather than being a public community meeting/hearing. Therefore, there is some public participation allowed, but it is not a public community hearing. I get it and that makes sense. However, one of the problems in the Clarkston school system is that THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMUNITY HEARINGS IN THIS DISTRICT... This frustrates the public. This community NEEDS public community meetings in order to get buy-in to changes the district is considering (if there are proposed changes), instead, the district is:

getting the rubber stamper board members to vote (usually with a 4/3 vote) to approve things the public neither knows about, nor would be interested in having implemented by not providing information to the public about it and limiting availability to the board packet information until the day of the meeting,

not asking for public opinion (the public survey from last year does not count, because it was illegitimate - asking for public opinion on subjects with insufficient information and wording the questions in certain ways in order to get a particular results and because there were no where near as many actual phone responses as the survey results reported),

regarding Board Packets:

not providing the board packets on the Fridays before the Monday meetings any longer,

not putting the board packets on the district website for all to view on the Fridays before the Monday meetings,

not including all of the backup documentation in the Board Packets,

and only providing the board packets to those who specifically ask for them to be sent to them via email on the day of the meeting (preventing any real analysis of the document).

and providing less transparency to the public by addressing critical issues in the "roundtable workshop sessions" that are not recorded in any way.

I believe that the CCS school board is dysfunctional and changes are needed.

Per the Center for Public Education, an initiative of the National School Boards Association, (available here), they say:

"The local school board is a critical public link to public schools. Whether elected or appointed, school board members serve their communities in several important ways.

First and foremost school boards look out for students. Education is not a line item on the school board’s agenda—it is the only item.

When making decisions about school programs, school boards incorporate their community’s view of what students should know and be able to do.

School boards are accessible to the public and accountable for the performance of their schools.

School boards are the education watchdog for their communities, ensuring that students get the best education for the tax dollars spent."

I wish that the Clarkston Community Schools School Board would actually become a group of seven professional adults representing the wants and needs of the public, focused on the direction and control of the school system in order to ensure that the students are educated safely and to the best possible degree given the funds the district has to spend on that endeavor. That is what the school board is supposed to be doing. I see Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman, and Rosalie Lieblang living up to those school board responsibilities. On the other hand, I see you, Steve Hyer, Barry Bomier, and Elizabeth Egan ignoring the wants and needs of the public, not requesting the proper data from administration (financial and program data especially), and allowing your employee, Dr. Rock, to take over the board's responsibilities to direct and control the school system and the board, to ignore the public's comments and desires, to refuse to supply the board with data needed to make proper decisions, and to keep himself and the school board as inaccessible as possible from the public.

I am very disappointed with the current dysfunction on the school board. I hope that the public does the right thing on November 6th and votes in the board members that will redirect the board to perform the functions the board is supposed to be performing.

Please respond to the questions and concerns I have above.

Thank you.

Dawn Schaller

http://acrosstheboard-clarkston.blogspot.com/

CCS bond debt rating was "negative" when the $20 million bond was proposed

2012-10-24T23:34:00.000-04:00

Here are my prepared comments for the 10/22/12 CCS board meeting:

"Regarding the technology priorities that were proposed tonight, I STILL have a problem with the proposal for district wide Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi is proven to cause tumors and other serious health conditions from prolonged exposure and the impact is worse on young children, pregnant women and their unborn children, and men in their reproductive years. I believe that the district is proposing using the employees and students as guinea pigs. The district could opt for a wired option that would prevent these health risks. I would like to see the district look into this.

On pages 68 and 91 of the board packet, which are pages 9 and 32 of the district’s audit, under “Capital Assets and Debt Administration”, and “Note 7 – Long Term Debt”, it shows::

□ the district has $128 million in general obligation bonds.

□ the district’s “general obligation debt rating” was revised from “negative” last year to “stable” this year.

□ and the district has $32.8 million owed to the school bond loan fund (where they have had to borrow money from the state to pay the general obligation bond payments that they were short from property taxes for the old bonds).

This leaves me with two questions:

□ Why did the district not inform the public at the time they were proposing the $20 million bond that the district’s general obligation debt rating was “negative”?

□ What would the district’s general obligation debt rating be today if the $20 million tech bond had passed in May given it was already in a “negative” state at that time?

I wanted to thank the district for restoring some of the transparency that it had removed in the last few months. The board packets for the school board meetings had been posted on the district website, but were removed and the district failed to put the new board packets on the district website citing a security breach that I was informed did not actually exist. Today, the district has posted the previous board packets on the website and promised to post the board packets on the Fridays before the Monday meetings. Thank you for going back to what the district had been doing.

However, in the last week or so, the district removed some of the most contentious board meeting videos, thus removing some of the transparency they were bringing back. The videos for seven board meeting dates are not on the district’s Ustream account website. Those meeting dates are:

10/10/11 - October 10, 2011
10/24/11 - October 24, 2011
11/28/11 - November 28, 2011
12/12/11 - December 12, 2011
2/13/12 - February 13, 2012
7/9/12 - July 9, 2012
8/27/12 - August 27, 2012

Thank you."

********************************************************************

After I spoke, Dr. Rod Rock spoke during his "Superintendent's Update". He informed the public (directed at me) that the district made it clear to the public that the school district's bond rating was negative when the bond was proposed. I am looking through district documents on the bond and I have yet to find that anywhere... Neither board members nor the public can respond to what Dr. Rock says during the superintendent's update. Isn't that special?

If anyone can find a district document or a speech made by the district that advised the public that the district's bond rating was negative while they were trying to get us to say yes to the $20 million bond, I will take this back and stand corrected.

"Transparency? We don't need no stinkin' transparency!", version 2

2012-10-19T15:37:00.000-04:00

Well, I thought Dr. Rod Rock couldn't remove any more transparency in the district. Boy! Was I wrong!

A message to Dr. Rod Rock, Clarkston (MI) Community School System Superintendent:

Dr. Rod Rock, why did you remove a bunch of board of education videos off the district's Ustream website (available here)?

Were you afraid that the community would see/hear the:

out of line comments and actions of school board president Cheryl McGinnis and the rest of your rubber stamp school board members (Steve Hyer, Barry Bomier, and Elizabeth Egan)?
the attorney for the school district, George Butler, when he inappropriately and publicly "ripped" certain members of the school board in a public board meeting early February 2012 in which you and Cheryl McGinnis blind sided the board about the reason for his presence at the meeting and what was to be discussed?
the public's comments at the school board meetings (including my comments, school board candidate, Betty Reilly's comments, and other comments by the public, both for and against the $20 million tech bond that was rejected by a ratio of 2:1 by the voters)?
the valid questions or requests for information being asked by Susan Boatman, Joan Patterson, or Rosalie Lieblang and ignored by you, Dr. Rod Rock?
evidence of the board bullying with the 4 to 3 votes to pass your proposals with either insufficient information to justify a vote, hidden information not being supplied to the board, or just flat overruling the board members asking questions with a forced vote and a 4:3 final win for whatever you wanted?

It is true, Dr. Rock, that you "work for" the school board. Technically, all you "need" is four members of the board to support what you want in order to get anything passed. However, the school board "works for" the public that voted them into office and they must be "open meetings". Therefore, the public DOES HAVE a say in what you do.

We (the public) can do something about your 4:3 blockade of the board by not returning Cheryl McGinnis to the board and making sure that Kelli Horst and Theresa Adriaens are not elected. Then you will only have the remaining rubber stamp board members (which would no longer be a majority) on the board and the "proper" school board business will be transacted at the board meetings.

What you are doing is not appreciated by the public.

email to Cheryl McGinnis regarding the decrease in transparency in the Clarkston Community Schools sent 10/12/12

2012-10-14T20:35:00.000-04:00

Mrs. McGinnis,

In regard to my previous requests and the district's changes to district transparency and openness, I have concerns because I see things getting more hidden and "opaque" than ever before.

You never responded to me in regard to the non-affiliated contracts that were missing from the 9/24/12 board packet (although they were finally in the 10/8/12 board packet).
Your comments show that you actually back Dr. Rock's change to be less transparent and less timely in making board packets available to the public. Not supplying the board packets on the district website and waiting until the day of the meeting to send out the board packets solely to the people who have specifically requested the board packets limits the availability of the information to the public and does not allow the public sufficient time to study the data.
Dr. Rock is abiding by the minimum legal requirements of the Open Meetings Act when he was previously more transparent. This is not a positive move for the school district (or the community at large) and does not bode well for your candidacy for re-election to the board in November, because, as president of the school board, you are allowing it to happen.
If you and the remaining three rubber stamp majority of the school board prefer the "video-recorded,-but-no-audio-and-inaudible-to-anyone-who-is-not-at-the-round-table" discussions (per your responses to me below) during the meetings, then you are apparently in favor of making sure that no one hears about the subjects discussed in the round table discussions. Shame on Dr. Rock, you, and your fellow board members and supporters of this form of communication (Steve Hyer, Barry Bomier, and Elizabeth Egan). In the last month, those subjects have included:

Building Reports (CJHS & CHS)
Secondary Scheduling
Standards Based Grading & Pilot Program
Technology Strategic Plan
Thinking Together
Building Reports (PKE & AE)
Non-Affiliated Contracts
Technology
Title I/At Risk Interventions

As I had already advised you on September 24th, I reviewed the two versions of the 9/24/12 board packets. I stand corrected on the addition vs. removal of your unprofessional, confrontational, and non-collaborative (to use Dr. Rock's third most favorite term) comments that you stated before the September 11th Board Self Evaluation. I also feel that the inclusion of all of your inflammatory comments in the minutes instead of the normal shortened summary minutes was also totally unprofessional.

I found that the "discussion" during the "Discussion Item 7.4, Board Self-Evaluation Follow-Up" at the 9/24/12 meeting regarding the September 11th Board Self Evaluation was childish and is was a clear example of bullying coming from the very top of the district. The Board Self Evaluation discussion meeting had been delayed for over two months due to the inability to find a day when Barry Bomier's and Elizabeth Egan's vacation schedules could be accommodated. Sue Boatman advised you of her inability to attend the meeting a week before the scheduled date. You should have rescheduled the meeting at that time, period. However, you chose not to do that. The last I checked, you board members were all adults. A board member's reason for why they cannot make a meeting is not up for scrutiny for the "legitimacy" of the reason for the inability of a board member to attend. As it was, Barry Bomier was not in attendance for that regular, 9/24/12, board meeting and it had been scheduled for months before hand. He was not given the third degree about the reason why he was not at the meeting.

Here were your word-for-word comments that were reflected in the 9/11/12 meeting minutes:

"As you already know, I have heard from Sue Boatman that she is unable to attend our Board Self-Evaluation scheduled for tonight due to a social conflict that arose after we all confirmed in a public meeting that we were available tonight. Subsequently Rosalie Lieblang communicated that if everyone could not attend, that she would not make herself available to participate. Finally, this morning I received a communication from Joan Patterson suggesting that we cancel the meeting and schedule it after the elections and that she also would not participate tonight.

Several months ago this board discussed in open session our desire to proceed with the Self-Evaluation process. To this end, this evaluation has been put off for many reasons. Prior to the August 20th board meeting, all Trustees were directed to bring their calendars to said meeting to re-confirm their availability for the September 11th date. With unanimous consent, September 11th was confirmed and communicated to Oakland Schools. That confirmation put in motion the posting of the meeting, Oakland Schools scheduling a facilitation team to be available, planning on the team's part for the retreat and booking a room. Also, as recent as last night’s board meeting this date and time were reconfirmed without any comments from board members in public that they could not attend. It is the chair’s intention to conduct business tonight and not let one board member’s social schedule defer us from our obligation to this community as elected School Board Trustees."

I hope that you will begin to make the changes that are needed in communication between the district and the public and administration and the board. It is long overdue.

Thank you.

Dawn Schallerhttp://acrosstheboard-clarkston.blogspot.com/

From: "Cheryl McGinnis"
To: Dawn Schaller
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:38:21 PM
Subject: Re: Revised Board Packet (CCS 10/24/12 Board Packet issues)

Mrs. Schaller,

Thank you for contacting the Board of Education. Your continued interest in the Clarkston Community Schools is appreciated.

Currently, Dr. Rock is in compliance with the Open Meetings Act (OMA) which governs notice of meetings to the public. The OMA also states that the public notice may, but is not required to, include an agenda, unless a public hearing is included as part of the meeting. At this time, it is the recommendation of the Superintendent to not load board packets to the district web site until our technology is brought up-to-date. I am confident that Dr. Rock will continue to evaluate district compliance to full public transparency as required by law.

At this time, I am unaware of any citizen that has requested a copy of the board packet whether printed or electronically that has not been given it.

Feedback from many board members has been extremely positive in regards to the workshop format of the first meeting of the month. This is an opportunity for the board to work together in a less formal setting and is for conducting the school district’s business and not intended to be a public community hearing. Citizens are welcome to attend these workshops; however, citizens will be given seating away from the workshop tables in designated areas just as provided for at Regular Board Meetings. As always the board will provide time for citizen’s comments in items #3 and #8 at these workshops.

As I know you are aware, your comments in item #2 in your communication regarding the action of the chair are incorrect and your understanding of what was changed in the board packet is also incorrect. I do appreciate your understanding of oversight in including the BAR to Item 5.2, as we are all human and make mistakes. I know an honest effort to adjust and move forward is the desire of all involved.

As always, thank you again for contacting your Board of Education.

Cheryl McGinnis

President, Clarkston Community School Board of Education

Home of Inaugural National Green Ribbon School 2012, Clarkston High School

“If you wait to do everything until you’re sure it’s right, you’ll probably never do much of anything.” – Win Borden

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Dawn Schaller wrote:

Dr. Rock, Mrs. McGinnis, and Mrs. McClain,

I received the first Board Packet this morning at 8:38 AM and the updated version at 11 AM for tonight's board meeting.

I was very disappointed, but not surprised, by what I found. Two things stood out when I viewed both versions of the Board Packets...

"Board Action Item 5.2. is called "Approval of Non-Affiliate Contracts: Anita Banach". There are no attachments for the Non-Affiliate Contracts on either of the 9/24/12 board packets. On 9/10/12, the contracts were discussed on camera, but there were no microphones at the round table discussions (how convenient), so no one could hear those discussions on the video recordings. No one would have known about it (besides the board members) if Betty Reilly and I hadn't attended the round table discussions at the 9/10/12 board meeting, but the contracts were not on the 9/10/12 board packet either (nor were any of the subjects of the "Item 6 Roundtable Workshop Sessions" from 9/10/12).

The 11 AM change to the 9/24/12 Board Packet was to delete the following comments in blue italics from page 6 of the Board Packet for the minutes of the 9/11/12 workshop meeting for the Board Self-Evaluation. However, I recall Board Members saying the 9/11/12 date for the Board Self-Evaluation was not convenient for them in previous meetings. I have a feeling that the below statement was actually part of the meeting, but someone checked a past video and realized that the statement was false... If, so, shame on Mrs. McGinnis for saying this at the 9/11/12 meeting in front of the Oakland Intermediate School District representatives, Dr. Vickie Markavitch and Dr. JoAnn Andrees. This meeting should not have been scheduled if all of the board members could not be present. The comments removed were:

"Several months ago this board discussed in open session our desire to proceed with the Self-Evaluation process. To this end, this evaluation has been put off for many reasons. Prior to the August 20th board meeting, all Trustees were directed to bring their calendars to said meeting to re-confirm their availability for the September 11th date. With unanimous consent, September 11th was confirmed and communicated to Oakland Schools. That confirmation put in motion the posting of the meeting, Oakland Schools scheduling a facilitation team to be available, planning on the team's part for the retreat and booking a room. Also, as recent as last night’s board meeting this date and time were reconfirmed without any comments from board members in public that they could not attend. It is the chair’s intention to conduct business tonight and not let one board member’s social schedule defer us from our obligation to this community as elected School Board Trustees."

Along with the district continuing to not load the board packet to the district website (as it had done prior to July, 2012), sending out the PDF versions of the board packets only upon request, and not sending the board packets until the day of the meeting (when the board packets are sent to the board members several days before the Monday meetings), are all evidence of a lack of transparency to the public that is growing within the district.
Please provide the Non-Affiliate Contracts.

Thank you.

Dawn Schallerhttp://acrosstheboard-clarkston.blogspot.com/

From: "Heidi Mcclain"

To: "Heidi Mcclain"

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:01:08 AM
Subject: Revised Board Packet

Tonight's board packet has been revised with an update to the September 11, 2012 Board Workshop minutes (item 2.3). The revised packet is attached.

Thank you,

Heidi

--

Heidi S. McClain

Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent and

Board/Superintendent Communications

Clarkston Community Schools

email to Cheryl McGinnis about the disgraceful 10/8/12 CCS school board meeting (sent 10/13/12)

2012-10-14T20:30:00.000-04:00

Mrs. McGinnis,

I wanted to cover a few things that happened at the 10/8/12 school board meeting with you.

As you know, I spoke at the 10/8/12 board meeting during Action Item 5.2/5.3. I discussed my opinion of the subjects of the inaudible roundtable workshop sessions (Discussion Item 6.2 of the meeting) and Action Item 5.2 (moved to 5.3), the "Supervisors and Administrators contract". Starting at 35 minutes, 59 seconds of the first video (available on the district website) and continuing until 38 minutes, 28 seconds) I had advised:

That the HR Director salary was set at around $86,000 when it was offered to the current HR Director in 2010.
That according to a FOIAed document I received last year from the district, that the HR Director's annual salary for the 2011/12 school year was $90,600.
That there was no category in either the existing or the new "Supervisors and Administrators contract" for "HR Director" or just "Central Office Director (minus the "Executive" level) at the $90,600 salary range.
That the HR Director had been calling herself the "Executive Director of Human Resources" for the past year although the board had not been asked to approve a promotion or pay raise for her.
That the only job category I could find on the contract that could have fit the HR Director was the "CO Exec. Dir" (Central Office Executive Director) job category that had a step 1 salary of $105,901, progressing to $118,699 at step 5 (year 5).
That would have meant that unless the "HR Director" job classification was just "missing" from the proposed new contract, that it appeared that the district was trying to change the job classification of the HR Director from "Director" to "Central Office Executive Director", resulting in a salary raise from $90,600 to $105,901 ($15,301 per year increase), or more if the district was going to grant second or thrird . However, the board had not been asked to approve a pay raise for the HR Director.
That the HR Director told me after a meeting in June of 2012 that she felt that she "deserved" the "CO Executive Director" salary and level.

Dr Rock then interrupted me and dismissed me from continuing my comments saying I was "making specific statements about people and I don't think that's appropriate at this time", and then when I disagreed and said I thought it WAS appropriate, he interrupted me and said "I think probably your two minutes are up" and dismissed me.

Shortly after I was dismissed by Dr. Rock and the board had discussed the issue some more, the HR Director, Anita Banach, got up to the podium at one hour, 7 minutes, 0 seconds to discuss the contract with the board. This was recorded in the meeting. She then basically said that she deserved the higher pay that the "Central Office Executive Director" position showed on the contract. She got personal against me. She specifically named me and said that I was "making stuff up". I take offense to her personal attack as I was not "making stuff up" as she said and I also consider that unprofessional of her as a school district "director". I had not attacked her personally, I had simply brought up issues regarding the salary schedule of the HR Director position on the contract that was in front of the board for approval and I stated history related to the HR Director position and pay. As much as it may have been personal for her because her pay would be personal to her, it was not a personal attack.

I have two concerns and a two requests regarding what happened when I spoke and was dismissed by Dr. Rock.

Concern 1 - According to CCS Board Bylaw 0167.3, "Public Participation at Board Meetings", "Section F., No participant may speak more than once on the same topic unless all others who wish to speak on that topic have been heard." Currently the board is refusing to allow any members of the public from speaking more than once at a meeting (unless that member of the public is Kelli Horst). What the Board Bylaw means is that members of the public have the right to speak to the board more than once at the board meetings and they can even speak on the same subject more than once after all others wishing to be heard on that subject have been heard. I was speaking on two subjects, but was limited to only one two minute speech, and there were no other members of the public who wanted to speak at the meeting, so I should have been allowed to speak twice on the two subjects and if I ran over on the time, I should have been given an opportunity to speak again to get my point across.

Request 1 - Can you ensure that the practice of allowing members of the public to speak at board meetings be changed to reflect the state of the Board Bylaw that allows members of the public to speak for up to two minutes on any and all subjects and allows the members of the public to speak more than once on the same subject as long as all others have had a chance to speak. This would match the state of the posted Board Bylaw to reality.

Concern 2 - According to CCS Board Bylaw 0167.3, "Public Participation at Board Meetings", "Section I., The presiding officer may: 1) interrupt, warn, or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant;". I do not believe that my comments were "personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant" as they were regarding the pay scale for a particular job category for the HR Director from the proposed contract that was on the agenda and the Board members had not been able to get a clear answer on this same issue from Dr. Rock during their previous discussion. The "presiding officer" of the Board meeting was you, Mrs. McGinnis, but Dr. Rock dismissed me from speaking and he had no right to dismiss me. After watching the video of this exchange from the meeting, I found that I HAD spoken beyond the two minute limit, but Dr. Rock was not the person who had the right to stop me from speaking, ONLY YOU HAD THAT RIGHT, and you didn't do it.

Request 2 - Can you ensure that the school board's only direct employee, Dr. Rock, is made aware of the bylaws that only give the Board President the right to dismiss members of the public in a school board meeting?

After Anita Banach sat down and right before the round table workshop session, Dr. Rock made a comment in which he commented about the "positive feedback regarding the roundtable discussions" (only partially true), said that several members of the board had asked for more opportunities for discussion before a vote (true), and that the round table workshop session was the way the district was allowing "discussion". That is just just wrong on so many levels. With the roundtable discussions split into two tables, the board members hear different questions and answers (resulting in incomplete interpretations) and they also result in a lack of transparency for the public and the board.

At the beginning of all of the board meetings, the president always makes the following statement:

“This meeting is a meeting of the Board of Education in public for the purpose of conducting the School District’s business and is not to be considered a public community hearing. There is a time for public participation during the meeting as indicated in agenda items 3 and 8.”

The above comments say that the board meeting is to conduct the school district's business rather than being a public community meeting/hearing. Therefore, there is some public participation allowed, but it is not a public community hearing. I get it and that makes sense. However, one of the problems in the Clarkston school system is that THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMUNITY HEARINGS IN THIS DISTRICT... This frustrates the public. This community NEEDS public community meetings in order to get buy-in to changes the district is considering (if there are proposed changes), instead, the district is:

getting the rubber stamper board members to vote (usually with a 4/3 vote) to approve things the public neither knows about, nor would be interested in having implemented by not providing information to the public about it and limiting availability to the board packet information until the day of the meeting,
not asking for public opinion (the public survey from last year does not count, because it was illegitimate - asking for public opinion on subjects with insufficient information and wording the questions in certain ways in order to get a particular results and because there were no where near as many actual phone responses as the survey results reported),
regarding Board Packets:

not providing the board packets on the Fridays before the Monday meetings any longer,
not putting the board packets on the district website for all to view on the Fridays before the Monday meetings,
not including all of the backup documentation in the Board Packets,
and only providing the board packets to those who specifically ask for them to be sent to them via email on the day of the meeting (preventing any real analysis of the document).

and providing less transparency to the public by addressing critical issues in the "roundtable workshop sessions" that are not recorded in any way.

I believe that the CCS school board is dysfunctional and changes are needed.

Per the Center for Public Education, an initiative of the National School Boards Association, (available here), they say:

"The local school board is a critical public link to public schools. Whether elected or appointed, school board members serve their communities in several important ways.

First and foremost school boards look out for students. Education is not a line item on the school board’s agenda—it is the only item.

When making decisions about school programs, school boards incorporate their community’s view of what students should know and be able to do.

School boards are accessible to the public and accountable for the performance of their schools.

School boards are the education watchdog for their communities, ensuring that students get the best education for the tax dollars spent."

I wish that the Clarkston Community Schools School Board would actually become a group of seven professional adults representing the wants and needs of the public, focused on the direction and control of the school system in order to ensure that the students are educated safely and to the best possible degree given the funds the district has to spend on that endeavor. That is what the school board is supposed to be doing. I see Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman, and Rosalie Lieblang living up to those school board responsibilities. On the other hand, I see you, Steve Hyer, Barry Bomier, and Elizabeth Egan ignoring the wants and needs of the public, not requesting the proper data from administration (financial and program data especially), and allowing your employee, Dr. Rock, to take over the board's responsibilities to direct and control the school system and the board, to ignore the public's comments and desires, to refuse to supply the board with data needed to make proper decisions, and to keep himself and the school board as inaccessible as possible from the public.

I am very disappointed with the current dysfunction on the school board. I hope that the public does the right thing on November 6th and votes in the board members that will redirect the board to perform the functions the board is supposed to be performing.

Please respond to the questions and concerns I have above.

Thank you.

Who to vote for - Clarkston School Board

2012-10-14T14:55:00.002-04:00

I believe that the CCS school board is dysfunctional and changes are needed. The public can do something about that when they vote on November 6th, by voting for the board members that will redirect the board to perform the functions that all school boards have an obligation to perform. Please vote for Susan Boatman, Joan Patterson, and Betty Reilly for Clarkston School Board. A vote for them will result in the changes to the school board that the district needs. You can learn more about them at electbpr.com . I also believe that Craig Hamilton is also worth voting for. I have spoken to Craig at school board meetings and I believe that he also sees the board's dysfunction and wants to see the changes that the district needs.

Conversely, it is key NOT to vote for:

Cheryl McGinnis, the top current rubber stamp board member up for re-election who supported the $20 million tech bond and open schools of choice in the district,
Kelli Horst, the top Dr. Rock cheerleader who has publicly sided with the current rubber stamp board members and Dr. Rock on anything being promoted by Dr. Rock, and was one of the ring leaders of the "Say Yes to the $20 million bond" group as well as supporting open schools of choice in the the district,
and Theresa Adriaens, the "absentee candidate" (not attending any board meetings and off the radar at the schools) who is a staunch Dr. Rock supporter.

Per the Center for Public Education, an initiative of the National School Boards Association, (available here),

"The local school board is a critical public link to public schools. Whether elected or appointed, school board members serve their communities in several important ways.

First and foremost school boards look out for students. Education is not a line item on the school board’s agenda—it is the only item.

When making decisions about school programs, school boards incorporate their community’s view of what students should know and be able to do.

School boards are accessible to the public and accountable for the performance of their schools.

School boards are the education watchdog for their communities, ensuring that students get the best education for the tax dollars spent."

I wish that the Clarkston Community Schools School Board would actually become a group of seven professional adults representing the wants and needs of the public, focused on the direction and control of the school system in order to ensure that the students are educated safely and to the best possible degree given the funds the district has to spend on that endeavor. That is what the school board is supposed to be doing.

I see Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman, and Rosalie Lieblang living up to those school board responsibilities. On the other hand, I see Cheryl McGinnis, Steve Hyer, Barry Bomier, and Elizabeth Egan ignoring the wants and needs of the public, not requesting the proper data from administration (financial and program data especially) that they should have before making decisions on those subjects, and allowing their direct employee, the superintendent, Dr. Rock, to take over the board's responsibilities to direct and control the school system and the board, ignore the public's comments and desires, and to keep himself and the school board as inaccessible as possible from the public. Mrs Patterson, Mrs. Boatman, and Mrs. Lieblang have requested data they are not only entitled to as board members, but the data should have been supplied to them prior to being asked to make decisions for the district. Time and again, Dr. Rock has ignored or refused their requests. A change in the board is what is needed to stop this behavior.

"School board's deficit is irresponsible"

2012-10-01T14:08:00.000-04:00

Great letter to the editor of the Clarkston News, Clarkston, MI, 9/26/12

See letter here: http://www.clarkstonnews.com/Articles-Opinion-i-2012-09-26-248902.113121-sub14473.113121-Letter-to-the-editor.html

"School board's deficit is irresponsible"

September 26, 2012

Dear Editor,

At the Clarkston School Board meeting on June 25, the board approved the 2012-2013 budget by a 4-3 vote. The budget that was approved by four board members authorizes the administration to spend $3.2 million more from the general fund than it will take in.

At the time this budget was approved, it extended a track record of six out of the last seven years in which the district spent more than it has taken in by the following amounts: 2007, $4 million; 2008, not available; 2009, $3.8 million; 2010, $7.2 million; 2011, $135,000; 2012, projected $2.7 million; 2013, projected $3.2 million. The track record of deficit spending may be even longer; data for years prior to 2007 was not immediately available.

That's a total deficit of $21 million over six years. While it is well-known revenues have been falling, the board had seven years or more to reduce expenses to match declining revenues; however, they failed, a majority of four members choosing instead to draw down the general fund reserve.

For the long-term financial health of the district, the board has the responsibility to produce and live within a budget in which spending is less than, or at worst equal to, income just as every household does. And the answer is not to go back to the community with requests to incur additional debt and raise taxes.

Three board members understand that; the other four do not.

However, because those four board members constitute a majority and have shown a lack of interest in, or a lack of skill regarding, being fiscally responsible, it is the community's duty to elect people to the board who do understand the need to more properly manage the district's resources to benefit students, parents, teachers, the community and to ensure the long term financial viability of the district. Regrettably, fiscal responsibility is only one aspect of the poor leadership exhibited by these same four board members.

In November you will be asked to elect four school board members. Two of those four board seats are currently occupied by the individuals who continue to manage ineffectually.

While one of those, Mr. Barry Bomier, has wisely chosen not to run for re-election, this is an opportunity for voters to excuse the other, Ms. Cheryl McGinnis, from a responsibility that appears to be either beyond her ability or beyond her level of caring and to elect people who understand the need for effective school district stewardship and open communication with the community to whom they are responsible.

Two other incumbents are also running for re-election – Susan Boatman and Joan Patterson. These two fit the profile of effective leadership and open communication. The same can be said for one new candidate – Betty Reilly.

If you review events of recent years, I believe you will decide to re-elect Ms. Boatman and Ms. Patterson, and to elect Ms. Reilly, because they represent the district's best prospects for a successful future.

Lawrence Matta

Independence Township

Best 2012 Clarkston Community School Board Candidates!

2012-09-30T19:00:00.000-04:00

Here is the website for the best candidates for the Clarkston (Michigan) Community School Board.

It is at: http://electbpr.com/

Please vote to re-elect Susan Boatman and Joan Patterson, and elect Betty Reilly to the Clarkston School Board November 6, 2012!

Susan Boatman and Joan Patterson (along with Rosalie Lieblang - still on the board and not up currently up for re-election) have been the voices of reason on the school board. They ask questions and request additional information that has not been supplied by administration in order to make more informed decisions for the school district and the public.

Betty Reilly was involved in the parent led C.R.I.S.I.S group that got the word out on the district planned stealth $20 million iPad bond proposal that was rejected two to one by the voting public in May 2012. Betty receives the school board meeting board packets to identify what business is being addressed at each of the board meetings and has regularly attended board meetings for the last two years. Betty has spoken at many meetings trying to get the school district to be more open and transparent.

To see biographies for Boatman, Patterson, and Reilly, visit www.electbpr.com

ELECT: BOATMAN, PATTERSON, and REILLY to Clarkston School Board

Vote for Boatman, Patterson, and Reilly for Clarkston School Board

2012-09-22T00:34:00.003-04:00

Clarkston Community School Board Candidates

Vote for the three School Board candidates who LISTEN, QUESTION, and CARE!
Here is the website for the best candidates for the Clarkston (Michigan) Community School Board.

It is at: http://electbpr.com/

Please vote to re-elect Susan Boatman and Joan Patterson, and elect Betty Reilly to the Clarkston School Board November 6, 2012!

Susan Boatman Joan Patterson Betty Reilly

3 Candidates Stand Out

For an effective Clarkston School Board
For lowering class sizes
For improved student achievement
For better oversight of our school tax $

They will do the proper research, and planning, and provide oversight and checks and balances on important decisions in order to ensure positive long-term effects for our students, our schools, our community and our property values. (Ex. To prevent an issue as happened with the failed bond proposal that cost Clarkston Schools over $35,000!).

Ensure your voice is heard in determining the direction of Clarkston Schools!

Together, they CAN make a difference!

Pro Kids - Pro Education - Pro Taxpayer - Anti-Rubber Stamp

I personally know Sue Boatman, Joan Patterson, and Betty Reilly. I know they are the people NEEDED for the Clarkston School Board.

Raises planned for top CCS administrators and directors?

2012-09-16T14:43:00.000-04:00

If you were an employee of the Clarkston Community School District and had your pay frozen OR had massive pay cuts and then had your pay frozen for several years, would you have a problem if administration was looking to increase the top administrator's pay and keeping the news hush-hush? I would...

The district (read Dr. Rod Rock and Mrs. Cheryl McGinnis) decided to use a "round table" communication vehicle to communicate a few subjects to the school board during the 9/10/12 CCS board meeting. It was recorded for Comcast channel 22 and the district's USTREAM account available here (click on the 9/10/12 board meeting video). However, you won't hear any of that round table discussion on the recordings because although the district recorded that part of the meeting, there were no microphones being used and the material presented was not part of the board packet for the meeting (from 2 hours, 7 minutes to the end of the recording at 3 hours - the remainder of the meeting was not recorded due to the three hour maximum recording time and the recording not being restarted at three hours. How convenient that there were no microphones...

During the round table discussions they discussed the status of:

"Non-affiliated"/non-union employee contracts (presented by Anita Banach, the CCS Human Resources Director),
IT in the district (presented by Matt McCarty, CCS IT Director),
and the "focus school" designations for Andersonville Elementary and Pine Knob Elementary (presented by principals, Jodi Yeloushan and Bruce Martin), what the "focus school" designation means, what is being done to get off the list, and Title I status and it's impact on the schools.

I was concerned about the fact that although Anita Banach advised that there was a "give to get" provision in each of the non-union employee contracts (leaving them all net zero or actually better for the district), there was an exception - the top administrators/directors (including Anita Banach), who would actually be receiving increases.

Did I hear that correctly? If so, have the other employee groups (including the union groups) been made aware that the district is proposing increasing pay for top administrators, while holding all of the rest of the employee groups to the cuts they already had or a "give to get" net zero change, or is that the reason for not posting the board packets to the district website?

I am very disappointed in the district's attempts to not be transparent about what they are doing with increasing pay for top administrators (principals) and directors.

Maybe Dr. Rock, Mrs. McGinnis, and Anita Banach would like to say about the employees, "let them eat cake".

Unbelievable.

Please feel free to comment anonymously.

"Transparency? We don't need no stinking transparency!"

2012-09-15T13:38:00.000-04:00

The title is a nod to "Blazing Saddles"...

Clarkston Community School District (CCS) has gone back to being "opaque". Apparently, Dr. Rod Rock no longer believes that transparency for the public is important.

The board packets for the CCS school board meetings used to be loaded to the district's website each week and the past ones were available also. Click on the district's home page here and then click on the "Board of Education" link towards the top of the page. You can then see the board meeting dates and no links to the the board packets.

The district used to post the board packets to the website on the Friday afternoons before the Monday meetings and they would be posted under the date of the meeting. The district is no longer (since July 2012) posting the board packets. The only way to get the board packets is to email the superintendent's secretary, Heidi McClain, and to request the board packet. It will be emailed to you a few hours before the meeting, preventing you from being able to study the document in any real way prior to the meeting. I believe that Heidi will also make a hard copy of it and have it available at the meeting if you do not have email, but it is no longer available to the general public to view on the district website three days before the meeting .

I sent an email to Dr Rod Rock (superintendent), Mrs. Cheryl McGinnis (current school board president and running for re-election in November), and Mrs. Heidi McClain (Dr. Rock's secretary) on the evening of Friday, September 7, 2012, asking why the board packet was not loaded to the district website for the 9/10/12 board meeting.

Cheryl McGinnis advised me Sunday night that she would have Heidi McClain send me the board packet via email and she would check into why the board packets were no longer on the district website. I did receive Monday's board packets a few hours before the meeting on Monday (with some detail missing that was sent to me after the meeting), but no one from the district has responded to me about the missing board packets from the district website (August and September meetings) and they have not been loaded.

However, someone else asked the same question of Dr. Rock on Monday, and he advised:

"We will send them out to the public on Monday's. Since we've had possible security breeches with our website, we won't post them but will instead send them via PDFs to those who request them."

A security breach (not "breech", as Dr. Rock stated) sounds serious, but I have not seen:

any removals or changes to any other documents or links on any of the district websites if the district was concerned about a security breach,
an announcement from Clarkstoncalendar.org about a district security breach,
or a news report on the security breach.

I was concerned about the district's IT security breach. During a break in the 9/10/12 CCS board meeting, I stopped to ask the CCS IT director, Matt McCarty, about the security breach. He looked surprised to hear me ask about a security breach and he said that there had not been a security breach. I advised him that Dr. Rock said that he was not posting the board packets on the district website due to a "security breech". He then said that one employee had lent his/her password to a fellow employee for that employee to have access to work on a project, but that it WAS NOT a security breach.

I then sent another email and asked Dr. Rock and Cheryl McGinnis what the "real" reason was that they were not posting the board packets to the district website. I have not yet (as of 9/17/12) received a response from the district.

I asked, "The school board members receive their board packets several days before the meeting. What possible valid reason would the district have for delaying the emailing of the board packets to those members of the public who have requested them until just a few hours before the board meeting? Is it because the district wants to prevent the public or employees from having an opportunity to study the material in the board packets before the meetings? That is exactly what it looks like... So much for "transparency".

The district owes us more than this, but as long as people don't demand transparency, we will not receive transparency.

Please demand that Dr. Rock stop covering up what is going on in the district.

August 7, 2012 Primary Results in Independence Township and all of Oakland County

2012-08-08T16:34:00.004-04:00

For the unofficial results of all of the August 7, 2012 primary election races click here and then click on the "election results" link in the box in the center of the page.

Then click on the "August 7, 2012 Primary Unofficial Election Results" link for up to date status.

All Oakland County election results are there (including Independence Township).

8/7/12 Independence Township election results:

SUPERVISOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 1)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent and status
Terry Fortuna	729	316	1,045	19.43%
Patrick J. Kittle	1,450	617	2,067	38.44% Winner - will take office 11/20/12
Neil Wallace	798	637	1,435	26.69%
Todd Waring	519	309	828	15.40%
WRITE-IN	2	0	2	0.04%

CLERK CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 1)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent and status
Jeff Decker	1,075	387	1,462	29.75%
Barb Pallotta	1,992	1,454	3,446	70.13% Winner incumbent, will stay in office.
WRITE-IN	6	0	6	0.12%

TREASURER CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 1)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent
Nanci Anderson-Bereznicki	498	278	776	15.78%
Paul A. Brown	1,399	725	2,124	43.20% Winner - will take office 11/20/12
Curt Carson	1,235	776	2,011	40.90% Incumbent, failed
WRITE-IN	4	2	6	0.12%

TRUSTEE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 4)(Repubs)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent and status
Jose Aliaga	1,205	719	1,924	13.01% 4th - will proceed to November election
Brian Foster	1,063	511	1,574	10.64%
Joette M. Kunse	1,018	761	1,779	12.03%
David A. Lohmeier	1,338	911	2,249	15.20% 1st - incumbent will stay in office
Al Pope	1,054	727	1,781	12.04%
Bruce Quigley	738	419	1,157	7.82%
Ronald A. Ritchie	1,285	902	2,187	14.78% 2nd - will proceed to November election
Andrea K. Schroeder	1,369	758	2,127	14.38% 3rd - will proceed to November election
WRITE-IN	16	0	16	0.11%

TRUSTEE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 4) (Dems)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent and status
Kevin Bushroe	474	294	768	32.98% 2nd - will proceed to November election
Jeremy D. Mitchell	505	308	813	34.91% 1st - will proceed to November election
Joe Wauldron	450	286	736	31.60% 3rd - will proceed to November election
WRITE-IN	9	3	12	0.52%

RENEWAL OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES - CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 1)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent and status
YES	3,797	2,067	5,864	78.81% - passed
NO	1,054	523	1,577	21.19%

ADDITIONAL FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES - CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE (Vote For 1)

Choice	Precinct	Absentee	Total	Percent
YES	2,505	1,203	3,708	51.67% - passed
NO	2,156	1,313	3,469	48.33%

Best Republican candidates in Independence Township, MI in August 2012 primary

2012-08-07T01:57:00.001-04:00

SUPERVISOR
Vote for not more than 1
Terry Fortuna		Republican
Patrick J. Kittle		Republican
Neil Wallace		Republican
Todd Waring		Republican

CLERK
Vote for not more than 1
Jeff Decker		Republican
Barb Pallotta		Republican

TREASURER
Vote for not more than 1
Nanci Anderson-Bereznicki		Republican
Paul A. Brown		Republican
Curt Carson		Republican

TRUSTEE
Vote for not more than 4
Jose Aliaga		Republican
Brian Foster		Republican
Joette M. Kunse		Republican
David A. Lohmeier		Republican
Al Pope		Republican
Bruce Quigley		Republican
Ronald A. Ritchie		Republican
Andrea K. Schroeder		Republican