Across the Board - Clarkston

Clarkston School Board members tweeting during school board meetings

2014-11-04T02:03:00.000-05:00

Clarkston School Board members disrespectfully tweeting during school board meetings

Steve Hyer, Elizabeth Egan, and Cheryl McGinnis were tweeting, in some cases very disrespectful comments about fellow board members during three school board meetings this past spring. Please, when you vote on November 4th 2014, remember to ONLY vote for the two candidates that have the maturity to be Clarkston school board members, Rosalie Lieblang and Donald Deering. Here is one article about the tweeting:

http://www.clarkstonnews.com/Articles-News-c-2014-10-29-256602.113121-sub14473.113121-School-board-candidates-talk-tweets-communication.html

By Phil Custodio

"School board candidates talk tweets, communication

October 30, 2014 - Contentious communication facilitated by social media was a issue this past year at Clarkston School Board meetings.

This past May, the board sought the opinion of the school attorney regarding posts to Twitter during meetings ("Legal opinion sought on tweets at meeting," May 07, 2014).

The candidates were asked their opinion on the matter.

Steve Hyer, who posted about 36 tweets such as "why do we need a supt if Lieblang is going to be voted to run the district" and "it's a discussion/Spanish Inquisition" during the April 28 meeting, said board deliberations and decisions should take place at board meetings and not outside of them.

"The Open Meetings Act and Mr. Butler state this very clearly," Hyer said. "Board members should not be deliberating outside the board meetings, regardless of how it's done, personally or electronically. Board members are free to share their individual opinions, but at no times should any deliberation toward a decision occur. Deliberations and decisions should only take place at the board table in public."

Democracy only works when citizens are engaged and informed, said Hyer, who did not share the Tweets made during the April 28 meeting with other board members or the audience.

"Unfortunately, some members of the board have taken advantage of meetings that had low public attendance and were not videotaped to treat the superintendent in an unprofessional manner and discuss issues that were not on the agenda. Any form of providing transparency is positive, and it also prevents such bullying from occurring," he said.

Twitter is an excellent way to connect with our community to provide near real time updates, he said.

"I believe this increases transparency and gets more people involved in the governance of our school district. If our citizenry is engaged and educated on the issues, we will have more success as a school district and community moving forward," he said. "Twitter is also very beneficial as messages can be scheduled ahead of time. It serves a good purpose to schedule congratulatory tweets to those being recognized by the board of education. It is also a good way to let people know what actually goes on at a board meeting. I've heard personally from over 100 people that they appreciate being kept up to date."

Just like with personal conversations, emails, Facebook posts, and newspaper/media comments, board members have to be careful that they are not violating the Open Meetings Act, he said.

"If board members engage in any communication with more than one other board member that is working towards a decision of the board, deliberating, they are violating the Open Meetings Act, which states all discussions and deliberations must only occur at the board table in public at a public meeting. Twitter is no different than any other communication method," he said. "I see any communication method, including the newspaper, to conduct board discussions as inappropriate."

Posting information that is on the agenda, or will appear in the minutes and thanking people for their work are very appropriate things to communicate, he said.

"I personally believe this board should follow the practices and principles of effective boards of education, and other boards, and appoint a board spokesperson," he said. "Detractors from this proposal have said this would keep them from sharing their views. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When the board meets in public at the board table, each and every item that comes before the board requires every board member's comments and discussion on that item. All board members have an equal chance to share their thoughts and opinions in public. Once the board has voted on that particular issue, however, board members should support the decision of the majority and communicate on that issue with one voice."

When the board speaks as individuals after a vote has been taken, the debate happens all over again, either in the print or social media, he said.

"This circumvents the transparency of having those discussions at public board meetings, and it usually leads to confusion as to which direction the board or district is really headed," he said. "I will continue to push for a single board spokesperson so that one consistent message is released to the public. This will still allow each individual board member to speak her or his opinion during discussions at board meetings."

Elizabeth Egan, who posted about a dozen tweets during the April 28 meeting with comments including "this is ugly behavior" and "how many education experts are sitting at this table? I see only one #rodrocks," said the school attorney's opinion should not be interpreted as an individual's right to free speech is forfeited because they sit on a public board.

"Mr. Butler's legal opinion was a response to a false accusation from one community member that the board had violated the Open Meetings Act during a board meeting," Egan said. "He specifically stated that three criteria must be met to violate this statute and none of those three were met. From my perspective, the tweets were intended to provide public transparency from a non-broadcasted five hour board meeting that ended with a few board members behaving in an overtly hostile manner towards our superintendent."

Last year, the board reached an agreement with the Independence Township Board to share PEG resources and cable television equipment, she said.

"I expected all school board meetings would be taped with an improved quality of viewing for our community," she said. "In February 2014, I made several requests to the board president to tape all board meetings and my requests were ignored. Video taping supports transparency to the public since many interested citizens cannot attend our School Board meetings."

Board members must communicate with the public, she said.

"Some walk the streets or give statements to the press, but our multi-generational society taps into LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram to name a few social applications," she said. "A printed newspaper or cable broadcast may not connect with busy working parents and younger voters."

The issue of board members using social media is the same as meeting face to face in public, she said.

"The content of a conversation or information shared in a public forum must not violate the Open Meetings Act," she siad. "Specifically this means, three criteria must not happen at once: we cannot create a quorum for discussion, four or more trustees; we cannot deliberate future decisions of the board, content of discussions should be social or information gathering in nature; and if a board member expresses an opinion in a public forum, whether it is a main street or social media location, we must disclaim the board, and declare ourselves as a free speaking person with an opinion. As expressed in our Operating Procedures, the board should have one spokesperson to speak on behalf of the board."

For Rosalie Lieblang, Twitter can be a good information source, but it is not appropriate to use Twitter during a board meeting.

"As Mr. Butler mentioned, tweeting during a meeting gets dangerously close to violating the Open Meetings Act," Lieblang siad. "The School Board is a public body, and as directed by the Open Meetings Act, all deliberations must take place in a public meeting. Having a discussion of board business over Twitter or through other social media avenues conflicts with the direction provided by the Open Meetings Act. The district's attorney is paid to advise the board on legal issues and it is in our best interest to heed his advice."

Many community members told her they were disturbed to hear/read about certain board members tweeting disparaging comments toward other board members during board meetings, Lieblang said.

"It is unprofessional and disrespectful behavior. We are teaching students through Cultures of Thinking to participate in discussion and be respectful and open to the views and opinion of others," she said. "This behavior of tweeting disparaging comments is contrary to what we teach our students. It sets a poor example and is sending the wrong message to students that this type of behavior is okay. I expect board members to be a role model for our students and making disparaging and disrespectful remarks on social media is not the type of behavior I want my children or the other 8,000+ children in our district to model."

Challenger Kelli Horst said it is her responsibility as a board member to be available and responsive to community members who want to discuss her position on any vote or issue discussed at the board table.

"Members of the board should refrain from actively opposing a majority decision once the vote is taken, no matter the communication channel," Horst said.

The board's credibility has been hurt by their own missteps and lack of leadership, including failing to act in a timely manner on the superintendent's and teachers' contracts; delaying their own evaluation; selectively taping meetings for broadcast; undermining the superintendent in public; and failing to heed the counsel of expert advisors, she said.

Challenger Donald E. Deering said he cannot speak to attorney Butler's comments or intentions behind the recommendation to "refrain from communicating about board business and websites at all times."

"However, I'm confident in saying that communication is the foundation for all collaborative efforts that have led to our country's greatest accomplishments," Deering said.

If the context of Twitter/social media was used negatively during a board meeting, there would be few, if any, exceptions to the rule for this being constructive, he said.

"However, if the context was somehow meant to be positive and/or constructive, perhaps there is a place for this mode of communication," he said."

Steve Hyer - Claimed Two Homestead Exemptions Illegally

2014-10-28T12:50:00.003-04:00

Steve Hyer is running for re-election for the Clarkston Community Schools School Board. This is the same person who claimed two primary homes for the Michigan Homestead Exemption at the same time while he had renters on one of the homes... See the article below with my comments in red and bold. In my opinion, this is not the the kind of person that should be re-elected to the Clarkston School Board.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20120419/clarkston-school-board-treasurer-cant-legally-claim-two-primary-homes

"Clarkston school board treasurer can't legally claim two primary homes

Steve Hyer

By MONICA DRAKE -

Posted: 04/19/12, 12:00 AM EDT |

It is illegal for a married couple to claim two homesteads, or places of residency, when they both only live in one of the homes.

Clarkston Board of Education Treasurer Steve Hyer found this out the hard way.

Springfield Township Deputy Treasurer Karen Binasio said the township sent Hyer a letter informing Hyer that he cannot claim two homesteads. Hyer then rescinded the homestead status on his Bluewater condo on Feb. 6 of this year.

Binasio said, "If you own and occupy your home, you have a homestead exemption. And that forgoes them paying 18 mills to the school operation. By law, you can only have one. Some people just don't rescind the homestead; they try to keep both homes homesteaded."

Hyer said he did not intentionally forego his taxes.

"If there are taxes I owe, I will pay them. I'm not trying to get out of any property taxes," he said.
Hyer and his wife lived in a condominium on Bluewater Drive in Springfield Township from 2003 to 2011. Hyer said he purchased the condo before he was married.

In 2011, his wife Kelly purchased a second home on Lost Pines Drive about two miles away from their first home. Hyer said he is listed on the deed. In 2011, they claimed both of these homes as their homestead, although they lived on Lost Pines Drive and rented out the condominium, according to the Springfield Township Assessing Department." They have been married since 2003. They both moved into the Lost Pines Dr address and began renting out the Bluewater Dr condo. However, his wife, Kelly Hyer, solely bought the Lost Pines Dr home and they kept the homestead exemptions for both homes? Sounds like there was intent there...

"Binansio said that's not legal. "There's not many tax breaks for married people. This is one of them," she said.

A resident contacted The Oakland Press because he was concerned that Hyer was not paying this school operating tax while the board of education was, at the same time, proposing a $20 million bond, or 1 mill property tax increase, in an upcoming special election.

Hyer said, "We were informed (by Springfield Township) I had to change the filing on my current condo, which I did. I don't know why there's an issue. If there are any taxes I owe or have ever owed, I will pay and have always paid. The way my taxes are paid is a personal thing. I don't owe any back taxes, and if I owe something that I get billed for, I pay it."

Non-homestead residencies or businesses are charged an additional school operating tax that primary residencies are not charged.

If the condo was listed as non-homestead in 2011, Hyer's summer taxes would have gone up by $462.60, according to Springfield Township's property records. The condo was the least expensive of the two homes.

"That's money that goes to the school. That doesn't come here to the township," said Binasio. "Oakland County has to send him a bill for the difference now."

Binasio explained that even people who own one house in state and one out-of-state, like Florida, only have one homestead. The home lived in for the majority of the year, six months and one day, is considered the homestead.

"It's the address you file your income taxes under or what your driver's license says. Those are ways to check," she said. "The way they find this stuff is by running same names to addresses."

Deputy Assessor for Springfield Township Arlene Badgley said the only exemption to this increase in taxes is if one of the houses is for sale.

"It's called a conditional rescind. If they bought another house, and they moved in and occupied it, they're allowed to get a homestead on that. The house that they're trying to sell, if they want a homestead on that, it has to be listed for sale and vacant. They have to apply for that every year," said Badgley. "But because it's a rental, (Hyer) wouldn't qualify for that."

Contact Monica Drake at 248-745-4687 or email her at monica.drake@oakpress.com. Find her on Twitter at monica_adele.

"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
248-623-5400http://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!

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

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/

"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.

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

Independence Township Primary August 7, 2012 Candidates

2012-08-06T20:39:00.001-04:00

See here for the Independence Township Ballot for 8/7/12.

PARTISAN SECTION
VOTE ONLY 1 PARTY SECTION

REPUBLICAN
PARTY
SECTION

CONGRESSIONAL
UNITED STATES SENATOR
Vote for not more than 1
Clark Durant	$	Republican
Gary Glenn	$	Republican
Randy Hekman	$	Republican
Pete Hoekstra	$	Republican

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
8th DISTRICT
Vote for not more than 1
Brian Hetrick	$	Republican
Vernon Molnar	$	Republican
Mike Rogers	$	Republican

LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE IN STATE LEGISLATURE
43rd DISTRICT
Vote for not more than 1
Paul J. Greenawalt	$	Republican
Gail Haines	$	Republican

COUNTY
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Vote for not more than 1
L. Brooks Patterson		Republican
E. Wadsworth Sherrod III		Republican

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Vote for not more than 1
Mike Bishop		Republican

SHERIFF
Vote for not more than 1
Michael J. Bouchard		Republican
James Stevens		Republican

CLERK & REGISTER OF DEEDS
Vote for not more than 1
Bill Bullard, Jr.		Republican

TREASURER
Vote for not more than 1
Marty Knollenberg		Republican

WATER RESOURCES COMMISSIONER
Vote for not more than 1
John P. McCulloch		Republican

COUNTY COMMISSIONER
4th DISTRICT
Vote for not more than 1
Tom Middleton		Republican

TOWNSHIP
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

DEMOCRATIC
PARTY
SECTION

CONGRESSIONAL
UNITED STATES SENATOR
Vote for not more than 1
Debbie Stabenow	$	Democratic

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
8th DISTRICT
Vote for not more than 1
Lance Enderle	$	Democratic

LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE IN STATE LEGISLATURE
43rd DISTRICT
Vote for not more than 1
Neil Billington	$	Democratic

COUNTY
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Vote for not more than 1
Kevin Howley		Democratic

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
Vote for not more than 1
Jessica R. Cooper		Democratic

SHERIFF
Vote for not more than 1
Jane Felice Boudreau		Democratic

CLERK & REGISTER OF DEEDS
Vote for not more than 1
Lisa Brown		Democratic

TREASURER
Vote for not more than 1
Andy Meisner		Democratic

WATER RESOURCES COMMISSIONER
Vote for not more than 1
Mark Danowski		Democratic
Jim Nash		Democratic

COUNTY COMMISSIONER
4th DISTRICT
Vote for not more than 1
Phillip Reid		Democratic

TOWNSHIP
SUPERVISOR
Vote for not more than 1
No candidates on ballot

CLERK
Vote for not more than 1
No candidates on ballot

TREASURER
Vote for not more than 1
No candidates on ballot

TRUSTEE
Vote for not more than 4
Kevin Bushroe		Democratic
Jeremy D. Mitchell		Democratic
Joe Wauldron		Democratic

NONPARTISAN SECTION
JUDICIAL
JUDGE OF CIRCUIT COURT
6TH CIRCUIT COURT
Non-Incumbent Position
6 Year Term
Vote for not more than 1
Dan Christ	$
Sahera Housey	$
Karen McDonald	$
Jason Pernick	$
Layne Ashley Sakwa	$

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

PROPOSAL SECTION
COUNTY PROPOSALS
OAKLAND COUNTY ART INSTITUTE AUTHORITY MILLAGE
The Oakland County Art Institute Authority established pursuant to Public Act 296 of 2010 to allow for continuing support of art institute services for the students, residents and visitors of Oakland County. The law allows the Authority to seek authorization from the electors to levy a tax of not more than 0.2 mill (20 cents per $1,000 of taxable value) on real and personal property to provide revenue to an art institute services provider for this purpose. Accordingly, to continue providing art institute services to benefit the residents of Oakland County, shall a 0.2 mill on all of the taxable property located within the County be imposed for a period of ten (10) years, being years 2012 through 2021? It is estimated that if approved and levied, this new millage would generate approximately $9,847,191 in 2012.

TOWNSHIP PROPOSALS
RENEWAL OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES OPERATING MILLAGE
Shall the Charter Township of Independence be authorized to continue the previously authorized levy of up to 3.1688 mills for a period of four (4) years, starting with the December 2012 levy, to provide fire protection and emergency services, including advanced life support, in the Township? This proposed millage is a renewal of previously authorized millage for the above-stated purpose. Approval of this proposal would renew a tax limitation increase of $3.17 per $1,000 of taxable value on all taxable property in the Township. It is estimated that this proposal would result in the authorization to collect $4,217,400.00 in the first year if approved and levied. It is estimated that 95.68% of the annual millage revenue would be disbursed to the Charter Township of Independence for fire and emergency services and, as required by law, 4.32% would be disbursed to the Township's Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority. The amount disbursed to the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority shall be collected solely from properties within the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority District.

ADDITIONAL FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES OPERATING MILLAGE
Shall the Charter Township of Independence be authorized to levy up to .59 mills for a period of four (4) years, starting with the December 2012 levy, to be added to the above proposed millage renewal (for a total millage of 3.7588), for purposes of providing fire protection and emergency services, including advanced life support, in the Township? This proposed millage authorizes new additional millage for the above-stated purpose. Approval of this proposal would permit an additional tax limitation increase of 59 cents per $1,000 of taxable value on all taxable property in the Township. It is estimated that this proposal would result in the authorization to collect an additional $785,240.00 in the first year if approved and levied. It is estimated that 95.68% of the annual millage revenue would be disbursed to the Charter Township of Independence for fire and emergency services and, as required by law, 4.32% would be disbursed to the Township's Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority. The amount disbursed to the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority shall be collected solely from properties within the Sashabaw Road Corridor Improvement Authority District.

CCS propaganda and my response to it re: collaborative dialog, following policy, deception, missing board meeting videos, "unlimited Schools of Choice", November 2012 school board elections, etc.

2012-06-23T13:01:00.000-04:00

From: Mike and Dawn Schaller
To: "Cheryl McGinnis",
Cc: Steve Hyer, Elizabeth Egan, Barry Bomier, Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman, Rosalie Lieblang, Phil Custodio (Clarkston News), Wendi Reardon (Clarkston News), Monica Drake (Oakland Press), Joette Kunse (Oakland Press).
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:29:44 PM
Subject: Re: 6/11/12 Board Package - missing documentation and questions

Mrs. McGinnis,

See our comments below in red and bold.

PS. November is coming soon! The same voters who voted down the $20 million Bond Election will be voting again in November. Many of them are upset with Dr. Rock, Mr. Hyer, Mr. Bomier, Mrs. Egan, and you regarding the May bond election. You and Mr. Bomier are up for re-election. It's time to clean house and vote in Board members who actually think of the impact of their actions before they act/vote and are not just rubber stamps for the superintendent.

We regularly receive communication from district staff and parents who do not like the direction of Dr. Rock/the district/the majority on the board. Employees fear speaking out due to their fear of retribution from Dr. Rock for having an opinion contrary to his. Parents are afraid that if they speak out against the superintendent, their children will not be given opportunities for sports or educational programs.

Neither employees nor parents should be afraid of retribution for speaking their mind, but they are, and that will be one of Dr. Rock's ugly legacies.

Thank you.

Mike and Dawn Schaller

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

From: "Cheryl McGinnis"
To: Dawn Schaller
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:22:07 AM
Subject: Re: 6/11/12 Board Package - missing documentation and questions

Mrs. Schaller,

Thank you for contacting the Board of Education. We do read your communications and do appreciate your input and your feedback. It sure doesn't feel like it when I get no responses to my questions or concerns and receive blank, non-response emails from Dr. Rock's "canned response" email address, rdrock+canned.response@clarkston.k12.mi.us .

I will address your concerns on behalf of the Board of Education. However, I believe that to truly engage in a collaborative dialog, it may be best for you to seek understanding on these items before making unilateral flamboyant accusations about each and every item you have a concern with. "Collaborative dialog"? There is no such thing as "collaborative dialog" in Clarkston Schools. We have sought "collaborative dialog" and "understanding" many, many times. However, if the district:

loads board packets for Monday meetings late on Friday afternoons,
doesn't respond to emails sent before a Monday meeting regarding content of the Board Packet,
loads additional documentation in the Board Packet within hours of the meeting (especially when it's obvious the Board members had the documentation since the previous Friday),
doesn't load certain controversial material at all (even after a meeting when it is promised to be loaded),
and does not respond to my emails or the comments that I or others present at meetings,
then there is no such thing as "collaborative dialog".
Therefore, I cannot receive any "understanding" beyond the hidden documentation in a Board Packet (if there is any) and what is unearthed by Board members asking questions during Board meetings. Sorry, but I do not believe that my comments are "unilateral flamboyant accusations".

For instance:

· Consistent with Policy 3420 upon recommendation of the Superintendent, Dr. Rock intends to recommend a restructuring of salaries within the central administrative team. This restructuring will be discussed at our next meeting and was outlined in the proposed 2012-2013 budget. You cite Policy when it is convenient for you or Dr. Rock. Your use of the word "restructuring of salaries" for giving raises to Central Office and other highly paid, non-union employees (and only those employees) is deceptive and improper while the district is pushing for continued pay freezes or cuts from the unions, and selling off the aides to a third party employee leasing company and taking away their retirement. I sent this email before the meeting, but there was no "restructuring of salaries" noted in the proposed 2012-2013 budget information in the 5/11/12 Board Package. If I had not brought it up and Mrs. Lieblang, Mrs. Patterson, and Mrs. Boatman hadn't also brought it up, I believe that it would not have been discussed in the meeting at all. I believe that it would have been addressed a few months down the line during a board meeting as a question of "where did this budget increase come from?" As happened last year in regard to other stealth budget increases that should have been (but had not been) brought to the board directly for approval, I believe that Dr. Rock's response would have been his mumbling a comment like, "the Board approved this with the 2012-13 budget in June." The budget increase in the pay for Anita Banach was brought up in my comments at the meeting itself before there was any discussion on the subject, rather than being in this email. However, I find it completely inappropriate for the district to "restructure salaries" of the highly paid Central Office employees' positions in order to justify huge pay raises (specifically for Anita Banach, as I don't know of any other planned salary restructuring). What is the reason why the contract needs to be "restructured"? The district has a deficit budget (that will be lowering fund equity) and the district is expecting more work/effort from all of it's employees, not just the Central Office employees. Yet the district is expecting the union employees to hold the pay cuts or freezes in the contracts being negotiated now while giving Anita Banach an almost 13% raise?!?! Is Anita Banach being given this as a reward for getting the unions to agree to pay freezes? That is part of her job. Anita did a lot of the bond presentations that had false information, was that part of the reason for the raise? Shame on Dr. Rock for even considering giving raises to ANY employee with the current economic situation facing the district, especially with the aides being sold to a third party company (and losing their retirement) and union personnel retaining pay freezes!

· 2011-12 Q3 Amendment – As stated in last nights board meeting this cost associated with Negotiated Benefits is due to an Accounting procedure in regards to the cut off of the prior health benefits plan and needing to accumulate it’s cost in 2011-12. Approximately $1.4 million of health benefit costs from 2010-11 not expensed until 2010-11 will need to be adjusted. I do understand WHY there were higher "negotiated benefits" for the 2011-12 fiscal year. This was discussed a year or two ago in a board meeting when self funding was originally brought up. What I questioned was why the district had not planned for that increase in the Q-2 Budget Amendment... The Q2 Amendment was prepared well after the expenses hit the district, so how could the district not have known and budgeted for it at that time? It is very suspicious... Was this done in order to allow for the budget to look like there was more money available there for technology upgrades needed for non-bond expenses for implementation of the $20 million bond (had it passed)?

· Consistent with past practice, there will be times based on many factors that items on the agenda may NOT be seen twice. That is true, but there is a distinct difference between a policy change of a policy that requires annual reconfirmation (requires discussion and then action) and an annual reconfirmation of a policy that has no changes (action/vote only). After reading your explanation of the "action" vs."discussion at one meeting and the then action at the next meeting" agenda item description, the word "disingenuous" comes to mind... This has been discussed and reiterated at many meetings. As chair I have no issue with board members voicing their concern of an item scheduled for action at a single meeting not having been discussed first. I’m open to their concerns and can adjust the agenda accordingly, based on the consensus of the board and best practices of the district. As chair, I will continue to work with board members who communicate with me their concerns regarding the agenda before a scheduled meeting. Your comments sound much like a Robert Ficano (Wayne County Executive) statement. I believe that your "chair" position appears to be going to your head. As the President of the School Board, you have an even greater responsibility to the public to be doing the "right thing" for the students, parents, voters of the district, and your fellow Board members. You and Dr. Rock also have a legal obligation to follow Bylaws and Policies when preparing the Board meeting Agenda and Board Packet. As such, you and Dr. Rock have a contractual obligation to prepare certain types of agenda items as "Discussion Items" before they are scheduled as "Action Items". It is not the responsibility of Board Members to ask "pretty please" to have those inappropriate "Action Items" from the agenda be changed to "Discussion Items." The "consensus of the board" is also a duplicitous issue. Shame on you for trying to pass this off as a legitimate way to deal with this. I have seen at board meeting after board meeting where this subject is brought up by Rosalie Lieblang, Joan Patterson, or Sue Boatman. It is usually argued disingenuously by your "group" and usually comes to a vote where you, Mr. Hyer, Mr. Bomier, and Mrs. Egan reject the request to change the item from "Action Item" to "Discussion Item" and keep the stealth item as a vote. Members of your group talk about "compromise" in such issues, but I recall that recently, when a motion was made by Mrs. Lieblang regarding the Project Lead the Way curriculum conversion from "limited" to "unlimited" Schools of Choice, that Mr. Hyer suggested that a better way to handle the issue was to make a motion to "table" the Item. Mrs. Lieblang then followed that request to make a motion to "table" the Item, whereby Mr. Hyer proceeded to vote it down... Please tell me where the compromise was in that action? The staff and the public have a right to know about some of these major issues before they are voted on. Your violating bylaws and policies to make it an action item (vote) the first time the issue comes to the board and appears on a Board Packet prevents that. It should NEVER happen. I hope that, as is happening to Wayne County cronies, the guilty parties within CCS end up reaping what they have sown also.

· I understand there was a technical failure during the recording of the May 21, 2012 board meeting and there was no sound recorded. Therefore, it seems frivolous to post this taping with no sound. I requested an explanation for this via several emails and no one from the district would communicate this to me until Matt McCarty advised me at the 6/11/12 Board meeting. However, do you really think I believe this?

· A quick comment on School of Choice. When staffing these classes, administration will “self-limit” enrollment based on classroom capacity. Therefore, unlimited enrollment does not mean to “infinity and beyond”. Your description means nothing to me. With the Project Lead the Way curriculum, the students accepted into the "career immersion pathway" need not take more than one two credit class per school year (only two of 15 annual class credits). This would allow a great deal of students to be accepted and except for that one two credit class per year, the students would be in regular, non-Project Lead the Way classes. However, I have five concerns in regard to the Schools of Choice issue:

You and Dr. Rock put the request for a change to the Schools of Choice Policy on the Board agenda as an Action Item (vote) before putting it on the agenda as a Discussion Item (just discussion, no vote). When it was brought to your and Dr. Rock's attention before the meeting and at the meeting, you chose to use your 4/3 majority (McGinnis/Hyer/Bomier/Egan over Boatman/Lieblang/Patterson) to keep it as a vote. This action allowed your majority group to get it approved before the public knew about it. I view that as true "stealth management" of a public school district that is unacceptable behavior from the superintendent and all four of his rubber stampers (McGinnis/Hyer/Bomier/Egan), all of whom are currently the officers of the Board of Education.
The public has never been asked for their opinion of Schools of Choice in general or "unlimited" Schools of Choice in particular. I believe that if the district would ask non-biased survey questions on this subject (I believe that the district's surveys in the last three years have historically been biased), you would find that the vast majority of district residents (read voters) are not in favor of Schools of Choice, but I can't imagine the district asking the public their opinion of Schools of Choice unless the survey question were set up as biased.
State law says that if districts have "selective" Schools of Choice, that is considered "discriminatory" and if challenged, the district could be at risk for losing 5% of it's total per pupil State aid for violating the law. The IB, AP, and CMSTech programs are all officially "discriminatory" because they require the students to have certain qualifications to be accepted into the programs. The district is therefore risking 5% of it's total per pupil funding to allow a handful of out of district students to be in those programs as was reported in the Detroit News in May of 2012. SoC actually brings very little funding into the district, very little improvement to MEAP scores, and risks a great deal of district funding from the State. Therefore, I believe that it's just a bad idea.
Implementing "unlimited" Schools of Choice on Project Lead the Way (a totally non-selective curriculum), is a problem this district doesn't need and it would most likely cost the district more in counselors and basic education retraining. I believe that the district is entirely unprepared to deal with the anticipated educational deficiency and behavioral issues that could occur if the district is inundated with students from schools that are not meeting "Adequate Yearly Progress".
I believe that "unlimited" Schools of Choice has the potential to decrease housing values as residents choose to leave the district rather than stay here.
I believe that "unlimited" SoC may actually decrease student counts as a result of well-to-do parents pulling their children out of the district and putting them in private schools. I believe that it has the potential to actually result in lower enrollment numbers than if there was no "unlimited" Schools of Choice.
If SoC students are recruited for their sports abilities, it takes opportunities away from resident students. Any SoC students should have to sit out one year to prevent SoC for sports recruiting.
I believe that students and parents from outside of a district do not have the same sense of "community pride" that the parents and students in the move-to district may have. I believe "unlimited" Schools of Choice would have unintended negative effects in relation to the sense of community in the schools.

Based on feedback on Wednesday, June 14, 2012 the Oakland County Elections, the following statement was received. “When filling out the heading of the petition, the candidate will indicate they are running for the 6 year term. Two highest vote getters will received the 6 year term and the 3^rd and 4^th will receive 4 year terms.” The Board of Education’s administrative Secretary has also spoken with Oakland County Elections officials and no confusion regarding the terms for the November 2012 Election exists. Thank you for advising me of this. There WAS confusion on the terms for the November 2012 election. Form 0142.3 F1, noted in Board Bylaw 0142.3 in the NEOLA webpage on the district's website was missing from the website (it spelled out the 4 and 6 year terms). Oakland County was not interpreting the 6 year/4 year terms the same as the form noted. I had asked Heidi McClain for clarification. Heidi advised me that she had already requested clarification from the Township and the County. However, she apparently received an answer, but she never notified me of the result.

I’m glad to see that we have agreement on a process. The Superintendent search process you outlined in your recent communication is exactly what Clarkston used in its search process. I do believe we can agree that we disagree on the results of that process, but that is ok. This board reaffirmed and supported 7/0 the hiring of Dr. Rod Rock as Superintendent of Clarkston Community Schools. Please don't insult my intelligence with the "7/0 hiring of Dr. Rock". You and I both know how the vote on Dr. Rock's hiring happened. Boatman, Patterson, and Lieblang all voted "yes" on Dr. Richards. You, Hyer, Bomier, and Egan voted "yes" on Dr. Rock. Therefore, Dr. Rock was "officially chosen by the Board" with only four votes. Boatman, Patterson, and Lieblang showed their "compromise" to vote yes on the affirmation vote. Good constructive input is a hallmark of a free society. I agree that "good constructive input is a hallmark of a free society", but CCS destroys the "free society" concept by refusing to listen to "good constructive input" and planning decisive votes on subjects that affect the community before the community can know what the district is planning on doing.

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

Cheryl McGinnis, Board President

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Dawn Schaller wrote:

Dr. Rock and Mrs. McClain,

Will you be updating the 6/11/12 Board Package on item 5.2 with the 2012-13 Custodial contract? BAR 5.2 says that documentation will be added as soon as possible, but there is nothing there as of right now. Can this be updated before the meeting?

Action Item 5.8, the "2011-12 Budget Amendment Q-3" shows:

There was a 21.1% overall increase ($1,756,242.00) in the budget of the cost of "Negotiated Benefits" from the estimates on the Q-2 budget amendment (from $8,326,353.00 to $10,082,595.00). How could the district not know at the time of the Q-2 budget amendment that the costs of the benefits would be so much higher?
There is nothing to compare the budget to from previous years because the budget was not presented this way in previous years. Please provide comparable final numbers from the same categories from previous years. You did not address this concern.
Discussion Item 6.1, the "Projected 2012-13 Budget Report" shows:
The negotiated benefits amounts for employees for the initial 2012/13 budget reflect the same amounts used for the "2011/12 BAQ-3 final budget " numbers (as they should), but they are marked on the spreadsheets as "BAQ 2 Amended 2011/12 Budget" numbers (in error). The projected 2012/13 budget numbers reflect a 13.8% decrease over the BAQ-3 amounts shown on the spreadsheet, but in the comments section, it says "$15,000 cap, 6% increase". What exactly does the district expect the negotiated benefits amounts to be in the budget year after a 21.1% increase and no changes in the medical plan - a 13.8% decrease, a 6% increase, will the employees pay a portion of their benefits now, or what? With such an large and important expense, I would expect this amount to be correct on the spreadsheet.
Do the budgeted amounts for the employee salaries and other benefits reflect the expected costs from the currently in negotiation employee contracts, or do they reflect 2011/12 contract amounts? None of this is reflected in the documentation in the Board Packet. You did not address this concern.
By the way, I am still waiting on a response to why the last board meeting (May 21, 2012) is still not loaded to Comcast channel 22 and the district website.

Thank you.

Dawn Schaller

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

Cheryl McGinnis

President, Clarkston Community School Board of Education

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

"If you believe in yourself and have dedication and pride and never quit, you'll be a winner. The price of victory is high but so are the rewards." Paul "Bear" Bryant

RADIATION EDUCATION --> EMR Safety for kids...BY KIDS

2012-06-20T17:52:00.001-04:00

RADIATION EDUCATION --> EMR Safety for kids...BY KIDS

http://www.radiationeducation.com/Helpful_Sites.html

Helpful Sites

If you want to learn more about microwave radiation from WiFi, cell phones, cordless phones, iPads, etc. These sites are good ones that have good information.

WiredChild will helps people reduce the risks from using mobile phones, cordless phones, wi-fi and other wireless products:
http://wiredchild.org/

Children As Victims Inquiry - wants to protect children from wireless radiation. Good stuff from both Europe and USA:
http://www.cavisoc.org.uk

This site has a lot of good quotes and interviews from scientific experts about the dangers of WiFi and cell phone radiation: http://electromagnetichealth.org/

This site is by parents who are trying to get WiFi out of their kids school:
http://www.safeschool.ca

Top EMR site in England, PowerWatch: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk

Empowering the public to protect children and youth from unsafe wireless technologies:
http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org

This site has a good collection of research on cell phone and WiFi safety for your parents - click on the "Research" and "Press" tabs:
http://www.radiationresearch.org

Our Mum's site where she blogs about wifi stuff, but also how to keep your whole family healthy (especially if you have gut problems):
http://www.listentoyourgut.com

Dangers of Wi-Fi in Schools - expert evidence in Portland, OR Public Schools WiFi lawsuit

2012-06-20T17:48:00.000-04:00

Dangers of Wi-Fi in Schools - expert evidence in Portland, OR Public Schools WiFi lawsuit

Amended Declaration of Dr. David O. Carpenter, M.D.

http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/Amended-Declaration-of-Dr-David-Carpenter.pdf

Additional information on the lawsuit and the website where the above link is available is available here.

Please click on the link for information on the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation from a qualified scientist, Dr. David O. Carpenter. This information was used in the case of vs. the Portland (OR) Public Schools

Amended Declaration of Dr. David O. Carpenter, M.D.

See below for Dr. David O.Carpenter's expert qualifications for reporting the health dangers of Wi-Fi and microwave radiation per the "Amended Declaration of Dr. David O. Carpenter, M.D.", found here:

"I am a public health physician, educated at Harvard Medical School. My current title is Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and Professor of Environmental Health Sciences within the School of Public Health. Formerly, I was the Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany and the Director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health.

I served as the Executive Secretary to the New York State Powerlines Project in the 1980s, a program of research that showed children living in homes with elevated magnetic fields coming from powerlines suffered from an elevated risk of developing leukemia. After this I became the spokesperson on electromagnetic field (EMF) issues for the state during the time of my employment in the Department of Health. I have published several reviews on the subject and have edited two books.

I am a Co-Editor and a Contributing Author of the BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), www.bioinitative.org. It documents bioeffects, adverse health effects and public health conclusions about impacts of electromagnetic radiation (electromagnetic fields including extremely-low frequency ELF-EMF and radiofrequency /microwave or RF-EMF fields). The public health chapter from this report was subsequently published in a peer-reviewed
journal.

Additionally, I am a Co-Author of Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for Electromagnetic Field Exposures, Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 23, No 2, 2008, attached as Addendum A-2.

In addition, in 2009, I was invited to present to the President’s Cancer Panel on the subject of powerline and radiofrequency fields and cancer, and have testified on this issue before the United States House of Representatives.

In sum, I am a public health physician, professor and former public health school Dean with expertise in electrophysiology, low-frequency electromagnetic fields bioeffects, and radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiation bioeffects."

CCS HR Director is getting a huge raise while freezing pay of other employees?

2012-06-12T19:06:00.000-04:00

My comments at the 6/12/12 CCS School Board Meeting:

Regarding Action item 5.2, the 2012-13 Custodial Contract, the district did not update the BAR for the contract until 5:06 PM this afternoon and all that was updated was some comments on the BAR. The contract is still not on the board packet.

Discussion Item 6.1, the "2011-12 Budget Amendment Q-3" shows:

There was a 21.1% overall increase ($1,756,242.00) in the budget of the cost of "Negotiated Benefits" from the estimates on the Q-2 budget amendment (from $8,326,353.00 to $10,082,595.00). How could the district not know at the time of the Q-2 budget amendment that the costs of the benefits would be so much higher?
There is nothing to compare the budget to from previous years because the budget was not presented this way in previous years. Please provide comparable final numbers from the same categories from previous years.

Discussion Item 6.2, the "Projected 2012-13 Budget Report" shows:

The Retirement rate for all of the employee groups shows 24.46%, but the blended rate for the 12/13 fiscal year is actually 26.64% per the district budget information from the 11/14/11 Board meeting.
I noticed that although there is still a major clamp down on pay increases, it shows that the director of human resource's pay is being increased by 12.8%, from $91,125 to $102,792, an increase of $11,667.
The negotiated benefits amounts for employees for the initial 2012/13 budget reflect the same amounts used for the "2011/12 BAQ-3 final budget" numbers (as they should), but they are marked on the spreadsheets as "BAQ 2 Amended 2011/12 Budget" numbers (in error).
Do the budgeted amounts for the employee salaries and other benefits reflect the expected costs from the currently in negotiation employee contracts, or do they reflect 2011/12 contract amounts? None of this is reflected in the documentation in the Board Packet.

Discussion Item 6.3, the Board Monthly Financial Report shows:

□ The fund balance graph shows the fund balance is around $4 million, but the Monthly Investment Report shows the total General Fund Balance is $7,786,301. How can both of these charts be correct?

For public comment, I wanted to say that I am still waiting on a response to why the last board meeting (May 21, 2012) is still not loaded to Comcast channel 22 and the district website.

CCS - HR Director to get 12.8% pay raise (?!?!) and other Dr. Rock failures.

2012-06-12T13:18:00.003-04:00

From: Dawn Schaller
To: Steve Hyers, Cheryl McGinnis, Elizabeth Egan, Barry Bomier, Joan Patterson, Susan Boatman, Rosalie Lieblang,
Cc: "Phil Custodio" (Clarkston News), "Wendi Reardon" (Clarksong News), "Monica Drake" (Oakland Press), "Joette Kunse" (Oakland Press)
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:06:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: 6/11/12 Board Package - missing documentation and questions

CCS Board,

See the email string for Dr. Rock's new communication style with the public. I received the attached email string yesterday afternoon...

I received an identical response from Dr. Rock on 5/23/12 at 11:23 AM from the same email I sent to him on 5/20/12. This one arrived on 6/11/12, with another "canned response" email ID ("Rod Rock" <rdrock+canned.response@clarkston.k12.mi.us>).

He appears to not even be pretending to read emails from me (or the public?) if my emails are forwarded to and "responded to" via a bogus email address with a name of "rdrock+canned.response". It has no real response as it just shows his email signature information at the bottom of the email string.

I believe that Dr. Rock is a rogue employee of the district. How long can the district afford to keep a superintendent who ignores Board Bylaws, District Policies, and doesn't respond appropriately to the public? I found his contract on the district website here.

Under item 3, it says, "The Superintendent agrees to serve the School District ... to commence and perform all assigned duties, to obey and fulfill all rules, and regulations and to abide by all Policies and decisions, as established by the Board of Education and the President." I believe that Dr. Rock has failed to "obey and fulfill all rules, and regulations and to abide by all Policies and decisions".
It says here under item 4 (e) that "the Superintendent warrants, represents, and affirms to the School District that: (e) that he will not withhold from the Board of Education, and will promptly report to the Board of Education, facts known to him, which facts, if not disclosed, could have a ... material effect on the Board of Education's correct perception of the operations of the School District." I believe that Dr. Rock violates this contracted promise to the District that he will make sure that the Board Members will have the information needed to have the "correct perception of the operations of the Schools District" because he has refused to provide financial information as requested publicly by Board members. Therefore, I believe that he has been in violation of his warrants, representations, and affirmations, which can be used as the basis for terminating his employment (see item 11).
Please also look at item 11. It says, "The School District may terminate this agreement without liability hereunder for salary, pension contributions, and/or fringe benefits, for any reason including but not limited to... a less than satisfactory evaluation of the superintendent; ... a violation of any of the terms, covenants, warranties, or representations in this Agreement; the physical or mental disability of the Superintendent. "Disability" shall mean, unless otherwise prohibited by law, the failure to uphold any Board of Education Bylaw, Policy, or regulation..." Dr. Rock has violated several Board Bylaws and District Policies (especially financial Policies) and has violated many of them many times, even after having the failure brought to his attention. He appears to think that if he "perceives" the Bylaw or Policy differently than it was intended and differently than a rational person would interpret it, that he is free to continue to misinterpret it over and over again with no repercussions because he has four Board members who will refuse to interpret the Board Bylaws and District Policies the way they were intended and the way an auditor would interpret the Bylaws and Policies.

At the 6/11/12 Board meeting, in Discussion Item 6.2, the "Projected 2012-13 Budget Report" it reflected that the salary for the Director of Human Resources was being increased from $91,125 to $102,792, an increase of $11,667, or 12.8%. Per District Policy 3420, "Benefits for Nonrepresented Staff", "Salaries and fringe benefits for all professional staff members not covered by the terms of a currently-valid negotiated collective bargaining agreement or arrangements shall be determined annually by the Board of Education upon the recommendation of the Superintendent." This salary increase was never brought forward to the Board for approval. Dr. Rock had an obligation to bring a salary or job change forward in a Board Meeting to have it "determined annually by the Board of Education". The district is continuing to tighten the district employment budget with contracting the remaining aide staff and attempting to retain pay cuts or freezes for other groups, but the Human Resources Director is to get a 12.8% raise?!?!?!!! If I were a financially squeezed employee, I would be angry with Dr. Rock. Not being an employee, I am angry at what I perceive to be yet another attempted violation of a District Policy.

Please do the right thing during and after Dr. Rock's evaluation. Please evaluate him accurately regarding his lack of adherence to contracted responsibilities and contract requirements and then please fire him. Then begin the search for the type of person that the district NEEDS in the superintendent position. See the article in The Citizen Newspaper here about the new superintendent in the Goodrich School District, Scott Bogner, and the process by which he was vetted before being hired. Per the article by David Fleet, "On Tuesday eight individuals from the district, which included principals, secretaries and school board members, traveled to the Grant School District to interview teachers, business owners and others in the community regarding Bogner. A total of 24 community members were interviewed." Other comments in the article talk about Mr. Bogner's "can-do" management style. This was the style of Dr Gary Richards, the other finalist with Dr. Rock when Dr. Rock was chosen over Dr. Richards on yet another 4 to 3 vote. Mr Bogner's style is the style that the superintendent of Clarkston Schools needs. The process Goodrich Schools used for making the final decision on the top superintendent candidates is the process CCS should use in hiring a superintendent, rather than allowing four individual board members to decide such a serious decision.
Thank you.

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

Here is the email I received yesterday:

From: "Rod Rock"
To: Dawn Schaller
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:01:34 PM
Subject: Re: 6/11/12 Board Package - missing documentation and questions

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM, <kdmigloo@comcast.net> wrote:

Dr. Rock and Mrs. McGinnis,

On the 5/21/12 Board Meeting Agenda and Board Packet, I see that you are attempting to make all of the Schools of Choice "programs" unlimited. It didn't go over well last year when you tried to do this and you are not allowed by Board Bylaw 0131.1 to put it to a vote ("Action" item) before having it on the prior Board Meeting as a "Discussion" item. Please see Board Bylaw 0131.1 Bylaws and Policies below from the Neola link off the district website:

0131.1
Bylaws and Policies

The Board of Education shall adopt bylaws and policies for the organization and operation of this Board and the District.

Those bylaws and policies which are not dictated by the statutes or rules of the State Board of Education or ordered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or a court of competent authority may be adopted, amended, and repealed at any meeting of the Board, provided the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal shall have been proposed at a previous Board meeting and, once proposed, shall have remained on the agenda of each succeeding Board meeting until approved or rejected except that the Board may, upon a vote and where compelling reasons exist, cause to adopt, amend, or suspend bylaw or policy contained herein, provided the amendment, adoption, or suspension does not conflict with law. Any resolution adopting, amending, or suspending a bylaw or policy under this provision shall expire automatically at the next public meeting of the Board unless the Board moves to adopt the resolution in final form."

Administration has an obligation to get annual approval from the School Board to continue to offer the School of Choice programs. The violation is that you are proposing a change to the current plan and any change must be put forward as a "Discussion" item (to be discussed and not voted on) at one meeting, and then, after discussion has taken place, it can be placed on the agenda of the following meeting as an "Action" item (to be voted on). I also believe that this is another attempt to pull another "end around" to not inform the public of potentially divisive decisions and get them approved by your four "rubber stamp" board members before anyone knows about it and then you can just say that the board approved it.

Here is the information from the 5/21/12 Board Packet as of 6 PM on 5/20/12 for item 5.1:
"Attachment # 5.1
DATE OF BOARD MEETING: May 21, 2012
ITEM: Resolutions for School of Choice Programs

AGENDA LOCATION (please check one)
Check One:
     Consent (Expenditures, Donations, Field Trips – Items not needing board discussion)
     Presentation (Student or Staff Presentations, Recognitions)
X Action (Items requiring the board to vote or take action, including resolutions)
     Report (Items requiring background information, updates to the board)
     Discussion (Items where board interaction/discussion is needed)
     Information (Items of interest to the board such as meeting dates or other general information items)
"ADMINISTRATOR/BOARD MEMBER SUBMITTING ITEM: Rod Rock

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
It is necessary for the district to resolve to authorize the Superintendent or his designee to accept applications for enrollment by nonresident applicants for the purposes of school of choice for the Clarkston Math, Science and Technology Academy in grades 9-12, the Advanced Studies Program in grades 8-12, the International Baccaluareate Diploma Programme in grades 10-12, and the Project Lead the Way Career Pathway in grades 10-12. In the past, enrollment for some of these school of choice programs was limited. The limits established have never been met. We are recommending that the CSMTech, Advanced Studies, IB and Project Lead the Way programs be "unlimited" for the purposes of better enabling the district to seek applications in an ongoing manner."
Although I doubt that anyone would have issues with unlimited enrollment to the CSMTech, Advanced Studies, or International Baccalaureate programs unless it limited access to CCS students, I believe that the "Project Lead the Way" "program", which is not really a "program" as the CSMTech, AS, and IB programs are, is just a gateway to allow the district to allow anyone into the high school from outside of the district.

I looked up the Policy on Schools of Choice on the Neola link on the district's website, and found that the Schools of Choice programs currently in place in the district appear to be illegal due to "Policy 5113 - Schools of Choice Program". It shows that, as of 11/11/02 (almost ten years ago), the Board determined that SoC was not something the district wanted. Obviously, this is an error in the district not updating the Policy on the the Neola site because we all know that there IS a Schools of Choice Program in the district, but it shows that this is where the information should be in regard to the Policy on SoC in the school district.

"5113 - SCHOOLS OF CHOICE PROGRAM

The Board of Education has determined that, in the District's best interest, it will not be able to participate during the forthcoming school year in an inter-district School of Choice Program.
The Board shall review this decision annually, based on information provided by the Superintendent concerning the availability of space in each of the District's schools and programs. The Board shall determine and publish whether or not it will accept applications for enrollment by new constituent district students, contiguous district students, or tuition students for the next school year.
Adopted 11/11/02"

Strangely enough, Dr. Rock, the discussion of your evaluation is item 7.2 on the 5/21/12 board meeting and you are showing your disregard for CCS District Bylaws and Policies by violating District Bylaws and Policies. ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

I DO NOT APPROVE of "unlimited" open enrollment in the "Project Lead the Way" Schools of Choice programs in the high school. I believe that if the rest of the public were aware of it, they would not be in favor of it either!

In a "Discussion" of the Schools of Choice Programs in the Board Meeting, you have an obligation to advise the Schools Board Members on how many students are in each of the various Programs. Your description of "the limits established have never been met", gives no detail.

I also don't care for your attempting to bypass policy by trying to squeak this by the public and the Board by trying to make it seem like it is just a reconfirmation of the existing programs... It is NOT!

Dr. Rock and Mrs. McGinnis, I urge you to change the item on the 5/21/12 CCS School Board Agenda on Schools of Choice from "Action" to "Discussion" to allow discussion to take place, allow the public to understand what you are proposing, have their opinions heard, and to stop this unacceptable (and probably illegal) behavior.

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

--
Rod Rock, Ed.D.

Superintendent

Clarkston Community Schools: Think Beyond Possible

Follow me on Twitter: @RodRock1

Check out my Blog: http://rodrockon.blogspot.com/

Find the Clarkston Community Schools on Facebook

Cultivating thinkers, learners,

and positive contributors to a global society.

Our next step is crystal clear--forward.

"Unlimited" Schools of Choice in CCS?!?! (submitted letter to the editor of Clarkston News 5/29/12)

2012-05-29T22:18:00.001-04:00

“Unlimited Schools of Choice” in Clarkston Community Schools?”

Dear Editor,

It is with frustration and sadness that I advise that Dr. Rod Rock, with the help of the CCS School Board President, Cheryl McGinnis, has instituted “unlimited” Schools of Choice in CCS in the four current SoC programs in the district, including “Project Lead the Way”, which allows for the acceptance of anyone of the appropriate age who applies from outside of the district. It was approved at the 5/21/12 CCS Board meeting.

PLTW is a Schools of Choice "program" for 10^th - 12^th graders that requires the applicant write a minimum 2/3 of a page hand written essay of "why the student wishes to enter the program and describing how past experiences in school have prepared them for the program", signature from a parent or guardian, and that the student has passed 8^th grade Language Arts and 8^th grade Math (for a 10^th to 12^th grade program!). It requires the students take one two trimester program class per year, allowing the students to fill the remaining 13 trimester classes per year with non-PLTW program classes.

Last year Dr. Rock insisted on including verbiage in the Resolution for PLTW SoC Program that “the superintendent shall have the discretion to accept students who have been suspended in the last two years, have a felony on their record, or have been expelled from another school”. Several other parents, board members, and I sent emails and spoke during the board meeting where this was voted on in 2011. We tried to talk the Board into deleting that verbiage in order to keep students out who had "histories of suspensions, felonies, or expulsions”, but Dr. Rock advised he wanted the right to accept those students and his four rubber stamp board members voted to retain the verbiage put in by Dr. Rock. Therefore, the program allows the superintendent to accept students who have previous histories of suspensions, felonies, or expulsions”.

There was not one communication from Dr. Rock this year asking the public how they felt about making the SoC PLTW Program “unlimited” and the only place one could have seen any reference to it was in the 5/21/12 Board packet that was posted to the district website on Friday afternoon, 5/18/12, before the Monday meeting. Dr. Rock was full of public communications when it came to try to get the $20 million bond passed. He (or someone from the district) attended and spoke at many public meetings; had videos created (many created by students during class time) and posted them on YouTube, the district's website, and Channel 22 on Comcast; sent out multitudes of “eblasts”; put out multiple “Words from the Superintendent” in the Clarkston News; and snail mailed two of "The Link Newsletters" home (one 100% dedicated to the bond, the other about 50% dedicated to the bond), but there was nothing about "unlimited" Schools of Choice...

Per "District Policy 5113 and Board Bylaw 0131.1, the Board must review, determine, and publish their SoC Program Policy annually and changes to District Policies require the School Board to discuss any proposed changes in a Board meeting prior to the Board meeting in which it is voted on. The 5/21/12 meeting had the Board voting on the change to make SoC "unlimited" AND to vote on it. When advised by several Board members of the violation (not discussing it on a meeting before it was to be voted on), Cheryl McGinnis (with the power of the "rubber stamp" majority), overruled them, kept it as the scheduled vote, and Dr. Rock’s rubber stamp majority Board Members approved the change and the renewal.

As of 5/29/12, the district still has not posted the contentious 5/21/12 Board meeting on the district website, nor on Comcast channel 22, for the public to see how ugly and wrong the meeting was. The 5/14/21 meeting is still being broadcasted on the website and Comcast channel 22. The district is now only broadcasting the meeting three or four times a day instead of looping the video. What possible reason could the district have for not posting the video of the meeting?

Dr. Rock’s annual evaluation will be during a closed session on June 18^th, 2012, with the final written evaluation presented at the June 25th meeting. Please let Dr. Rock and the School Board know how you feel about unlimited Schools of Choice in the PLTW Program in Clarkston High School and how you feel about the Board violating their own Board Bylaw by voting on the SoC Policy change without a prior board meeting "discussion". Let them know if you think it's disturbing that the district chose to not engage the public on the SoC change. Their email IDs are: rdrock@clarkston.k12.mi.us; cmcginnis@clarkston.k12.mi.us; hyers@clarkston.k12.mi.us; eganee@clarkston.k12.mi.us; bomierb@clarkston.k12.mi.us; pattersonj@clarkston.k12.mi.us; boatmans@clarkston.k12.mi.us; lieblangr@clarkston.k12.mi.us; .

Thank you.

Dawn Schaller