Jeannine Butler's statement

[Eric]

As quoted in the Herald_Time article on Thursday, Dec. 6, 2011, the following is the text of a statement Monroe County Community School Corp. board member Jeannine Butler read at Tuesday night’s school board meeting:

Up until now, I have chosen not to engage in any response to allegations and misinformation from Mr. Knox. However, his guest editorial in Monday’s paper was a personal attack on me, my integrity and the work of this board. I therefore feel a need to say some things to Mr. Knox in a public forum.

With respect to the budget crisis and decision made last spring, this board made decisions based on the best available information and recommendations from our administrative team. I believe that with every discussion, and subsequent decision made, I and the board had the best interest of the school community and the students at the forefront. The referendum was not a mistake, and the outcome of that referendum will provide a better future for the students and staff of MCCSC.

Any legal expenses on my watch have come from your lawsuit against this district. The lawsuit wasn’t necessary because we agreed with the public access counselor that we erred by not using the appropriate numbers and language on the notice. Having to pay our legal fees and your legal fees is unfortunate and could have been avoided. These are dollars that could have been better spent to serve the district.

This board, and the MCCSC staff, particularly administrators, have had time taken from their duties by an overwhelming number of e-mails and visits from you. You have repeatedly shown up in central office and our schools demanding time with the superintendent, other central office administrators, principals, and have even shown up unannounced and uninvited at some of the principals’ homes. And, you have used the MCEA (Monroe County Education Association) building reps list-serve to send e-mails to MCEA members. Many of us have tried to work with you. Because we don’t agree and/or follow your every suggestion, you have become angry. However you forget that we have many individuals who are involved in this district who have provided us with a wealth of information and who also have asked for our time. As a board we take all the information and include it in our decisions. You are one of hundreds that we hear from. There is only so much time we can give a single individual without neglecting our duties. Your editorial indicated that you were going to now limit your involvement in school affairs. I would suggest that you consider a more appropriate way to continue to be involved in a positive way with this district.

Finally, no one sitting up here has anything but the best of intentions. We each give a great deal of our time on a weekly basis. While some may not like my decisions and some may not even like me, I have always believed in the value of public education in a democratic society and have tried to make decisions that serve the greater good. I have served this school community for many years, and I am sure that I have made mistakes. However, I have always tried to keep the students and the educators who teach them my No. 1 priority. I resent having my integrity challenged and my service to this community portrayed as self-serving. It is not, has never been and will never be. And I believe that the board that has served this community tirelessly in the past year has made decisions that were honest, open and based on the best information we had. It is time to move forward and hire the best superintendent to lead this great district and I plan to be a part of that path in the next four years.

[Eric]

I thank the Herald-Times for publishing Dr. Butler's statement. After Tuesday's school board meeting I asked Jeannine for a copy, but she declined my request. Bethany contacted me yesterday morning and asked for my response concerning two specific allegations, which I provided, but I've just now seen the full text. The text includes numerous statements that are not factually correct, but hey, we have free speech in this country.

I enjoy reading the HTO comments, and I invite people to continue writing claims about what I have done -- the more outrageous the better. At the end of the day tomorrow, I will pick my favorite submission and invite the contributor to join me for lunch on Saturday.

I have also posted a copy of Dr. Butler's statement on the SOS discussion forum, and I will provide the same two-day opportunity at that site for Jeannine to substantiate her allegations about me. Dr. Butler is understandably upset about the current situation, and I hope that after she has a chance to reflect on what she wrote that she will retract and apologize for those aspects of her statement that are not true.

Eric Knox

[Kim Sackmann]

...I invite people to continue writing claims about what I have done -- the more outrageous the better. At the end of the day tomorrow, I will pick my favorite submission and invite the contributor to join me for lunch on Saturday .... I hope that after she has a chance to reflect on what she wrote that she will retract and apologize for those aspects of her statement that are not true....Eric Knox

Eric, To ask someone to apologize for something when they maintain the belief they are not at fault, and what they have written is true, is wrong. This is very poorly done. I would like to suggest contacting Nancy Lumbley www.cjam.org for moderation. -Kim S.

PS - I would like to go to Lennie's at 11:00 am for lunch on Saturday.

[Kim Sackmann]

May I apologize to Eric Knox for Jeannine Butler (the person); and, at the same time, support the on going work of the MCCSC legal department to mediate for Dr Butler in her capacity as the past President of the School Board - concerning illegal activity?

Jeannine is my friend (opinion). She is a human being (fact) and has shown [1] to be incapable of apologizing when she is wrong (public and personal observation) [2]. When put on the defensive she fights back (observation). Her January 4th statement read at the school board meeting was unfortunate at best and illegal at worst. Jeannine should not have taken it personally. Her statement was very poorly done (opinion).

Eric Knox was not attacking my friend Jeannine, but rather her actions in her position as the 2010 past President of the MCCSC Board of Trustees. Her personal integrity was not challenged but rather her actions as a leader. Eric’s guest column was an ‘op-ed’ piece. Opinion/Editorial guest columns are opinions, and there are appropriate avenues open to rebuttal with the Herald Times on both the opinion page (high-brow) and at the HTOnline website’s online comments (low-brow).

Jeannine’s reading of a prepared inflammatory statement at the closing of a public school board meeting with no opportunity for rebuttal could have been stopped by the newly elected President of the School Board, but was allowed to continue (fact). I have no excuse for that and was completely dumbfounded.

Legal issues. Mr Eric Knox speaks not only for himself. He speaks for me as well. His many emails and telephone calls are in response to many more solicited and unsolicited complaints, frustrations, and overall distrust of the school board as a machine of education. Please recall the more than 800 angry people attended the February 2010 school board meetings. Yes angry, but more than that, surprised or rather shocked by actions that had been privately discussed (3) decided and voted upon in illegal closed meetings (‘mistake’?). The actions were namely; a school closing, a department wiped out, and several programs cancelled.

The legal council at this writing is earning its weight in gold for MCCSC who has been making mistakes for quite some time. These mistakes have been politely and publically noted, stated, written to, and largely ignored by the board. Again, this is not personal. We as the district’s public have much to gain by these legal proceedings and at relatively little legal expense. The time to fix the machine is now. Legal advice is crucial. A class action suit would be far more expensive and damaging to the trust our public has in the MCCSC Board of School Trustees and administration.

A metaphor on timing.

The Fire Truck is speeding down a hill and the brakes go out. What do you do?
A) Stop and fix the brakes.
B) Pump them up, and try again, add fluid if needed and continue to the fire! Fix the brakes later.
C) Same as ‘B’ but ignore fixing the brakes later – they won’t fail again for another 6 years anyway.
D) Call the tow truck and scrap the fire truck, letting the school house burn down in the process.

A Brief History of my perspective.
* The funding crisis was announced and PTO Presidents were invited to meet with Dr Coopman to provide information and dispel misinformation.
* Feb 19th AM - At the first PTO meeting held (delayed from Mon. to Fri. due to snow closing) Dr Coopman was asked what can be done between now and the school board meeting tonight - in about 6 hours (with the vote on the agenda) to halt the pending removal of all the Professional School Librarians from the K-12 School Libraries. His answer was that nothing could be done the decision had already been made.
* Feb 19th PM - About 600 people attended the 2nd large meeting and protested, primarily Librarian and Aurora supporters. The vote on the cuts was passed unanimously by the school board. (The 1st meeting, Mon. - February 16th was attended by about 800 people but the vote was tabled until Friday.)
* I contacted an online legal advice site to see if there was a case, specifically if ‘lying in the weeds’ or 'waiting in the weeds' was legal. I also asked advice from a legal educator indirectly and both answers were that if posted correctly then there was no legal recourse. I gave up and actively supported the administration from that point forward.
* During the next months (and also later into the referendum campaign) I answered many people who shared my concerns (lack of decision-making transparency) with these legal opinions and promised that, outside of collective bargaining (Unions and salaries) and personnel decisions, the school board promised to be more transparent.
* The last day of school (teachers only, no students), surprise again; all ECAs were dropped and all librarians were reinstated. (Oh boy, here we go again…)
*The next day the public opinion meetings commenced. Bill Carnes and the Charettes were to meet with the public 4 times. I attended all and a special one to invite the Support Our School readers. A School Board member informed me that the decision was a part of collective bargaining not open to public input. [4]
* During the summer months I worked on ECAs fund drive because that had in essence bought back the professional librarians. I declined the blue ribbon team and encouraged the founding of a professional librarian advocate program. I was selected as a member of the Referendum Steering Committee, although I am sure administration and the school board had grave reservations due to my involvement with the SOS site. I spent many hours spreading bread crumbs on the path to community involvement and open sharing by encouraging and promoting use of the SOS site. Bill Carnes, Tina Peterson, Christy Gillenwater, The School Board, and Administration have use the site successfully to debate issues. (Eric was not actively posting at that time on SOS)
* The fall months were all Referendum. Again, we all promised transparency and community involvement. The referendum passed as you well know, but the vote was very polarized. I personally promised voters to look into additional stable school funding, for example the funding formula. Dr Coopman’s wrap up meeting was a SWOT analysis for future referendum lead by a consultant who passed over comments concerning alternatives to general fund referendum. (Oh boy, here we go again…)
* The school board meeting after the election I asked for an apology from the board for the February meetings and only Sue Wanser stated that things could have been done differently. Jeannine Butler stated she had already apologized, but she had not. I also backed Eric’s request for the board to be accountable and for a restoring of a healthy balance of power (in a checks and balances way) to the three powers that run the school district (Administration, The school board, and the three unions.
A promise was inferred that there would not be anymore shocking surprises and that business would be done more openly to involve the public. However, requests by the public to be included were countered with ‘we will be using professionals now’ and ‘we will be using important people now’.
* The Principals made a bid to help and act as Interim Superintendent (and to help earmark the referendum funds). Meetings were held but no public comment was allowed. Eric planned a public forum and administration boycotted (opinion) it. Sue Wanzer and Keith Kline kindly attended in unofficial capacity.
* Eric worked to disclose the ‘sunshine’ law for public meetings. And that brings us to this point in time. Public School districts are public. We have a right to know what is going on by way of public meetings. You may ask, and ask but until a law is broken and legally interpreted you have no power to exercise your right to be involved. The argument is the state against the school district. This is not personal, this is the law.

In conclusion, at the last Referendum Steering Committee Meeting Duane Busick stated to me that Eric Knox should get a medal for his work in bring us the referendum. I am sorry that this was not done.

My friends during this past year make strange bedfellows. Duane Busick, Tim Thrasher, Peggy Welsh, Eric Knox, Jenny Olmes-Stevens, JT Coopman, Joe and Joey Ehlers, Harmon Baldwin, Jo Weddle, Christy Gillenwater, Jeannine Butler, Dale Staton, & Paul Purdom, to name just a few. There are no white hats and black hats in this crowd. We all have the childrens’ welfare in mind.


Thank you,
Kim S.


(1) School board Meeting November 23rd. Apology requested./ks ‘Things could have been done differently’/sw. I have already apologized…/jb (false comment).
(2) Phone call concerning cited –vs- sided.
(3) Valerie Merriam at Work Session in Dec to originally hear Principals’ proposal.
(4) Valerie Merriam at 1st Charette, break out meeting.

Note: I would like to draw attention to choice ‘C’ above for the benefit of Mrs Martha Street and Mr Kelly Smith. Welcome to the school board, I welcome your fresh views

[Eric]

It should come as no surprise that Jeannine Butler has not substantiated her allegations against me, and as we all know, unsubstantiated allegations are indistinguishable from false allegations. I cannot prove that unicorns do not exist, and I cannot rebut false allegations because imaginary circumstances cannot be proved or disproved.

Having experienced Jeannine’s approach to intimidation on May 21st, this comes as no real surprise, but I was surprised that every other member of the school board allowed her to present her statement unchallenged, because at that point it became the opinion of the board as a whole. There is no provision in the bylaws for school board members to make personal attacks in a public meeting.

I have never criticized Jeannine personally in public, and the only time I met with her privately was at the May 21st meeting that she organized. I do not regard this as a ‘she said, he said’ situation, because my concerns are about her performance as president of our school board, and the meetings are almost all documented by CATS. The statements and information that I cite are all matters of public record, as are the vast majority of MCCSC e-mails and documents. This is a public corporation with freedom of information except for individual student and employee records and files.

Jeannine is fundamentally mistaken about there being a lawsuit. As indicated elsewhere in this discussion forum I provided the written notice of intent as part of a friendly invention so that the school board could meet in executive session with MCCSC legal counsel, which they clearly needed to do at that stage. The reason for the negotiations was to forestall a lawsuit, which would have cost over $100,000 by the time depositions were taken, etc., etc. The cheap solution was simply to file a second complaint after the school board so brazenly admitted what it had done during the work session on December 14th, but this would have simply created unnecessary embarrassment, which was never my intent. The important ingredient was for the school board to have an opportunity to repeat the process, so that they could show our community that they understood what was done wrong, and that they knew how to do things right. At one point when I was emphasizing the importance of pursuing a path that does least damage to the reputation of the school board, someone (who I respect) told me that was absurd for me to claim this as a goal after what I had just done. What I had just done?!? I did not break the law. I did not bring the school board into disrepute. The school board was failing to conduct MCCSC business legally, and my intervention was as gentle as possible. I must admit, after sitting though Jeannine’s broadside in a public meeting when I could not respond, my first thought was that I should have simply filed the second complaint to the Public Access Counselor, and then contacted MCCSC.

Jeannine is correct that the legal fees could have been avoided, but only if the school board did not violate the Open Door Law. If MCCSC legal counsel was willing to propose a remedy, this would have reduced the costs, but MCCSC wanted me to present the case and make a proposal, and the only way that I could do that was with a lawyer. The lady doth protest too much, methinks!

The most stunning part of Jeannine’s statement is her fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a Board of Trustees, which is a governing board. I have great respect for Dr. Coopman’s development of Professional Learning Communities, which yes, yes, is all about student learning, but it is really a model for continuing professional development. This is all based on a simple concept of life-long learning -- for students, teachers, principals, everyone -- because this is the goal of a liberal education. I once led a graduate seminar on college teaching when someone innocently asked, “Why is everyone so committed to a liberal education instead of a conservative education?” James Crow, a famous geneticist and excellent teacher politely responded that a liberal education has no reference to politics -- the purpose of a liberal education is to teach people how to think, not what to think, and if they learn how to think, maybe they will keep doing that for the rest of their lives.

But I digress. With the good comes the bad, and it was clear to me by April that Dr. Coopman had no intention of pursuing a school funding referendum in November. He had no long-term commitment to MCCSC, while I was fundamentally concerned about the future of MCCSC. It seemed in poor taste for him to stick the knife in so deep during his exit interview with the H-T at the end of December, but some of his conclusions about the school board were on the mark. Our school corporation is supposed to be run by the Superintendent and his/her staff. It is not a question of the school board micromanaging -- they are not supposed to be managing at all -- that is the job of the administration. The school board is comprised of trustees who are elected by our community, and their job is to hold the administration accountable to the standards and expectations of our community. They are supposed to govern a decision-making process, not be actively involved in that decision-making process. Perhaps this is a subtle distinction for some people, but the fundamental issue of guiding versus deciding is not obscure semantics.

Jeannine states that “this board made decisions based on the best available information and recommendations from our administrative team.” So, well, hmm, there is more than a slight misunderstanding here. This administrative team does not belong to the school board -- they are the administrative team of this community’s public school corporation. The job of the school board is to be a very important part of the system of checks and balances that keeps our $140 million/year public school corporation functioning properly. The school board is not supposed to take what the administration presents at face value -- the school board is supposed to hold the administration accountable. I am not suggesting that the school board should be in fundamental conflict with the administration -- quite the opposite -- they need a good working relationship and the way to achieve this is to make the overall expectations very clear. Included in these overall expectations should be clear, concise, well documented information pertaining to all major decisions that the board is asked to approve. The job of the school board is to independently verify what is being presented to them. When people start suggesting that we need a watch-dog group or a citizens advisory committee to supervise the school board, they misunderstand the fundamental problem that this is what the school board is supposed to be. If the school board is not playing that role, then they are the problem of what is wrong with our public school corporation.

The members of the school board seem like reasonable individuals, but collectively, they seem to have lost their way. It was very funny (and ironic) to watch the seven-member school board criticize the proposal from the Instructional Leadership Team to have a three-member executive committee. If the arguments of the school board are correct, then the school board should voluntarily disband and recommend replacement with a single, publicly-elected School Czar who defends the public interests. The school board is unlikely to approve this course of action, but I sincerely hope that they develop some understanding of the role they are supposed to play because right here, right now, our school board is not functioning properly. My suggestion that Jeannine resign is not personal. I respect the decades of service she has provided to MCCSC, but the school board needs new direction, and it is time for new ideas and new leadership.

[Eric]

Herald-Times Reporter Bethany Nolan contacted me by e-mail on Wednesday, January 5, 2011, indicating that she anticipated writing a story regarding Jeannine’s statement at the school board meeting the previous night, and she asked me to answer two specific questions. I was not informed that Bethany was planning to print Jeannine’s entire statement or that she was giving Jeannine an opportunity to elaborate on the allegations.

When my guest columns were published by the H-T, I was pleased that the editor checked the details in advance with Tim Thrasher, all the more so because I had given Tim draft versions and/or advance copies for his comments. I was therefore surprised that there was no independent fact-checking or requirement for Jeannine to substantiate her allegations prior to publication. To the extent that these allegations remain unsubstantiated, they are false and hence slanderous, and I remain puzzled by the H-T’s willingness (perhaps unwittingly) to convert slander into libel.

Although I did not have a written copy of Jeannine’s comments (and I did not have the time to transcribe her comments after the CATS video became available), I prepared a longer response to Bethany (copied below), which included answers to her specific questions. I was disappointed that she elected not to include, or even make mention, of the related issues I presented in my response. Bethany was one of the few other ‘outsiders’ who were present at the work session and the regular school board meeting on November 14th when the ODL violations were so brazenly admitted by Jeannine and other members of the school board. It is fair to give people the benefit of the doubt, and we all wish that our elected public officials were honest and forthright, but the presumption of innocence should evaporate when you witness people violate the law, particularly if you are a reporter. I respect the independence of our local media, but if the so-called ‘fourth estate’ is to fulfill its role in democracy, then journalism needs to be informed and journalists need to ask probing questions.

Perhaps it is my training as a scientist, but I can substantiate my public comments. I have publicly apologized for the most egregious instance in which I unquestioningly accepted information that was presented by MCCSC (a $2 billion mistake -- oops!). The fact that this erroneous information was unambiguously corrected in July, but the misinformation has been consistently perpetuated by MCCSC, makes it increasingly hard to claim this was an honest mistake.

The best part of Jeannine’s attack on me is the corroboration of MCCSC’s use of fear and favor. It becomes abundantly clear why teachers and principals and in fact most MCCSC employees are so reluctant to say anything in public. It also explains why most parents are reluctant to complain about obvious problems in the schools. Other than attempt to smear my reputation, there is little that the school board can do to hurt me personally. If my most outrageous offense has been to keep the school board working within the law, and if no one else on the school board objected to Jeannine’s statement, then you can understand why so many people simply want to keep his or her head down and not dare to step out of line. Imagine what would have happened to me if I was an MCCSC employee. Administration by fear and favor is an organizational sickness that needs to be cured. Unfortunately, this problem is rooted in the school board.

The response I submitted to Bethany is as follows:

************************************************** ***
Dr. Butler was not factually correct, and her overall tone seemed self-serving.

In advance of yesterday’s meeting, an editorial in the Herald-Times on December 26th stated that the school board “must, in public, debate the pros and cons of both ideas and come to a conclusion in the open” and that “the public wants the board to have an open and sincere deliberation about what’s best for the corporation.” The MCCSC has been found by the Public Access Counselor to have violated the ODL. I deferred filing a second ODL complaint challenging what went on at the December 7th meeting and what decisions were made at that meeting which also, in my opinion, violated the ODL. The Public Access Counselor did not consider these issues in his initial opinion as they were not part of my initial complaint. I deferred in filing that second complaint as the MCCSC Board, through its attorney and mine, entered into a written agreement. The good faith intent of that agreement, on my part and I assumed MCCSC’s part, was that they should revisit the decision-making process without prejudice. I was very disappointed last night by the indications that they are merely going through the motions without any consideration of the procedural aspects of what decisions need to be made first. I encourage you to ask each Board member the following questions:

1) What topics were deliberated during the executive session on December 7, 2010?

2) What decisions were made during the executive session on December 7, 2010?

3) If there were deliberations and decisions discussed at the December 7th meeting, did you realize these were in violation of the ODL?

This matter will be partially resolved during the regular school board meeting on January 11, 2011, because they are scheduled to approve the memorandum certifying the December 7th executive session. Given the self-admission on December 14th of having received the Instructional Leadership Team’s proposal (that was not available to the public as an agenda item), having deliberated the merits of this proposal, of having decided ‘by consensus’ to reject this proposal, having decided ‘by consensus’ to form an advisory committee, and having agreed to pursue an external candidate for interim superintendent without official action, it would seems impossible for the school board to certify that they abided by the legal posting for that executive session without committing perjury, which is a criminal offence. The only apparent alternative would be to admit the violations that did occur.

For the Open Door Law Agreement dated December 23, 2010, between myself and the MCCSC, through our legal representatives, I did not require the MCCSC to admit wrong-doing. However, statements from board member(s) attempting to limit or to minimize the ODL violations which occurred on December 7th (not just those officially found to be in error by the Public Access Counselor) are disingenuous at best.

Item 4 in my December 23rd agreement with MCCSC concerns school board members undertaking necessary instruction to have a more complete understanding of the ODL. I suggest that they postpone Thursday’s meeting until such time that they can conduct that meeting in a way that embraces both the letter and spirit of the law.


In answer to your specific questions:

1. Do you have a response to the allegation that you showed up “unannounced and uninvited” to some principals’ homes? If true, which principals’ homes did you visit and why?

The statement in the plural (“principals”) is untrue. The principal at the school my children attend has an unlisted telephone number, and I have gone to his house to leave a note asking him to call me so that I could inform him in a timely manner about my actions with respect to the Open Door Law. In previous e-mail correspondence with the person in question and other school principals I have clearly indicated that I would respect their wishes if they did not want me to communicate with them. Two individuals requested that I not contact them, and I have abided by these requests and I extended my apologies for any unintended intrusion.


2. And do you have a response to the allegation you used the MCEA building representative’s listserv to send emails? If true, please share how you gained access to the listserv and why you felt it necessary to do so.

This is also untrue. As part of the organization in March and April for the Support Our Schools Rally and Parade, I compiled publicly available contact information for school board members, central administrators, building principals, MCEA officials and building representatives, other concerned teachers, AFSCME officials, and PTO presidents, as well as contact people for Bloomington neighborhood associations and individuals concerned about high-quality public education who were Indiana University faculty members and administrators, elected officials in city and county government, and members of the Monroe County business community. The SOS rally was a volunteer drive, and I also compiled a list of 400+ people who signed up to receive additional information. Since then I have contacted various people at various times to inform them about issues and opportunities. In a few instances, people asked not to be contacted again, and to the best of my knowledge I always replied promptly, extended my apologies, and removed the individual from the relevant contact list.


On April 15, 2010, I received a memo from Dr. Coopman asking SOS to cease and desist all activity until specifically instructed by MCCSC. On May 21, 2010, I was asked to attend a meeting at the MCCSC Administration Center which became the adult version of a trip to the principal’s office. I am aware that Dr. Butler does not personally appreciate many of my actions, but all of my actions have been aimed at promoting high-quality public education in MCCSC, and for that I have no apologies.