When adults fail...

...we shouldn't use children as cannonballs and/or decorations.

Soon to be former Scranton School District (SSD) Greg Popil wants to send all of the students in the district to Harrisburg to protest for higher state funding.  You can read about it HERE.  This is a horrible idea on multiple levels:

• How can a financially distressed school district afford to send 10,000 kids and teachers on a four hour round trip?
• What happens to those kids who don't want to go?
• What happens if parents don't want their kids used as political decorations?
• Just where would you put 10,000 kids in Harrisburg?
• How do you feed 10,000 kids in Harrisburg?

I could go on...and on...but the point is made.

Speaking of points, here's mine:  It's not the job of children to obtain fair funding for the SSD.  That's the job of the adult members of the Pennsylvania Legislature, individuals who should have known that this has been an issue for years, but yet have allowed it to continue (by way of background, the SSD receives far less money from Pennsylvania than other comparable school districts).  So far they have failed, miserably I might add, to solve this issue and yet basically no one in any position of authority has been publically willing to call them out on their horrible performance.  I get that these are powerful individuals, but I can't help but see the irony of students being evaluated on their work but yet we don't want to evaluate the adults on theirs.

Am I being too hard on our elected officials?  Is it not their fault that the Pennsylvania Legislature is dominated by members of another political party?

My answers to the above questions are "No" and "Too Bad".  I'm sorry that this is a tough problem to solve.  However, Pennsylvania's legislatures are among the best paid in the country.  It's time they earned their keep.

Some think that sending kids to Harrisburg to protest the SSD's state funding would be a great lesson in civics.  I think an even better lesson in civics would be for our local legislators...both from the PA House and the PA Senate...to explain to the students why they are unable to solve this seemingly simple problem and why other elected officials believe that they are worth less in funding than students from, say, Erie Pennsylvania.

Scranton School District: When the Man Comes Around

The big news coming out of Scranton...well make that one of several pieces of big news coming out of Scranton (considering the fact that the FBI recently searched the home of the Mayor)...is the fact that the state Departmartment of Education (DoE) has appointed a recovery officer that will be assigned on a full-time basis to the Scranton School District (SSD).  This is one step shy of the Pennsylvania DoE actually assuming full control the SSD.  A related article can be found HERE. 

Yes, the man is coming around.

No one will be happy with what happens next:

• Teachers will be paid less.
• SSD employees will be laid off.
• Taxes will increase.
• Children will lose the benefit of a neighborhood school.
• Some programs will be eliminated.

Basically, less will be delivered and it will cost more.

Who is to blame?  That's surprisingly easy to answer:  Registered voters in Scranton.

It was a majority of the 30% or so of registered Scranton voters who routinely voted for grotesquely incompetent candidates for the SSD board.   How "grotesquely" you may ask?  Well, ponder the fact that, over the past few years, two former SSD board presidents didn't even graduate from high school,  That's how grotesque.  The SSD board operated like a sailor on leave in Bangkok for decades, and now no one is "clapping".

Scranton taxpayers got the successive SSD boards that they wanted.  

This is also a board that twice...not just once, but twice...voted for a no-bid busing contract that just happens to be with a significant campaign contributor and influential local businessman.  For the record, I don't blame the businessman; if anything, he's guilty of out-smarting a bunch of amateur politicians (again noting that two recent SSD board presidents didn't even graduate from high school, so how difficult could that have been?).

District teachers don't escape blame here either.  The Scranton Federation of Teachers (SFT) routinely endorsed many of these grotesquely incompetent board members, time and time again.  Why?  Well, like the busing contractor, I suspect that they knew who they could out-smart.  They were successful, but like the kid that eats too much candy, the inevitable rotten teeth now must be pulled.  Look for the SFT to complain loudly about the actions that "the man" will recommend, while conveniently forgetting their active role in SSD mismanagement.  Their excuse/refrain will be that it was the "administration" that is to blame here, and they are right...but again forgetting that they helped elect many of the "administration".  

Detecting a pattern here yet?

My heart genuinely goes out to those teachers, maintenance workers and others who will lose their jobs.  I've lost a job through no fault of my own, so I know the difficult road they will travel.  Many of these people just want to work hard and earn a decent living.  But like the bystanders in a drive-by shooting (decades in the making), they had little choice in the matter.

I'd like to tell you that this will all work out in the end and that there will be momentary pain followed by a better tomorrow, but that's a lie.  There will be years of pain ahead.  Scranton voters will learn the hard way that you reap what you sow by either voting for the incompetent or not voting at all.  

Transparency in the Scranton School District

A lot has been and continues to be written about the most financially unstable school district in Pennsylvania, namely the Scranton School District (SSD).  Two recent entries related to the SSD that are worth reading include...

December 17th Scranton Times Editorial - Board Plays, Student's Pay

Tom Borthwick's Blog Posting 

I'm not going to add anything new to the conversation other than the following:  It's essential that SSD Board is fully transparent in all of its efforts to resolve the financial crisis.

Fully Transparent.

Far too much business has been undertaken by the SSD Board in secrecy.  The cynic in me believes that the secrecy was an important element in successive board members running the SSD for the benefit of themselves, family members and friends.  Regardless of the underlying reasoning, the fact remains now that secrecy is the last thing the region's largest school district needs. 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

All of the SSDs current financial challenges and potential solutions should be discussed in public. This doesn't mean hours-long shouting matches with teachers and taxpayers; rather, every item related to the district's finances should be discussed and debated in full view of the public.  Every director must speak up and be held accountable for their actions. 

There should be a PUBLIC effort to recover over-charges from the SSDs no-bid busing contractor, even if that effort ends up failing.  There is value in shame.

There should be a PUBLIC effort to recover the costs of benefits paid to non-eligible individuals.  This will have little impact on the budget, but it's important from an accountability perspective.

There should be a PUBLIC review of all NON-EDUCATION expenses incurred by the SSD, including varsity sports programs.

There should be a PUBLIC review of all administration salaries and benefits.

There should be a PUBLIC review of all SSD facility utilization, including the administration building. 

And lastly, there should be a PUBLIC review of all the SSDs educational programs.  Making the assumption that art, music, and library are somehow (and automatically) of lesser value to the education of children is short-sighted at best, shameful at worst.

Simply throwing up a PowerPoint slide with pre-cooked solutions, as the SSD Board did this past week, is not being fully transparent.  Instead, this is simply another example of business as usual for a group that has failed miserably at its job.  It's time close down the back room for good. 

The Entire Scranton School Board Should Resign

Here's the least damning thing recently reported about the Scranton School District (SSD) by Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale:  Scranton effectively has the most debt-ridden school district in Pennsylvania.

Again, that's the least damning thing noted in the A.G.'s recent performance audit of the SSD.

It get's worse from there; here's a telling quote from the A.G.:

“It is long past time for the dysfunctional Scranton School District board and the staff to start acting like responsible adults, and to be blunt, get their heads out of their asses and focus their energies on doing what is right for the district’s 10,000 students and thousands of taxpayers,” 

You can read more about Auditor General's report on the Scranton Times website (link to the article HERE).

You can read the entire report produced by the A.G.'s office HERE.

There's nothing I need to embellish in this mess, as the facts stand out on their own.  I do wonder if some of the accusations merit a further criminal investigation, such as over $600,000 paid to a mechanic...who was not a district employee...who also received SSD paid medical coverage (for himself and his spouse).  Then there's the busing contract, which virtually everyone, including the A.G. but except a majority of the SSD Board, has known to be a fiscal version of a dumpster fire.

Regardless, there's one step the SSD Board should take, unanimously I will add:  Resign.

The entire SSD Board should resign, effective immediately.  All of them are complicit in regard to the SSD's perilous states, both fiscally and from a leadership perspective.  All of them either knew or should have known what was happening in the SSD.  All of them failed to appropriately raise the condition of the SSD to the crisis level that's described in the A.G.'s report.  The fact that Pennsylvania's Auditor General has to shame the SSD's leaders into doing their jobs is more than sufficient justification for a mass resignation.

Speaking of complicit, the SSD's unions can't escape blame here, as they knowingly engaged in the politics of the board, routinely endorsing candidates that weren't qualified to count money in a second-rate Bingo Parlor, let alone manage a multi-million dollar budget.  Yes, the objective of any union is to look out for its members, but educators and support professionals in education have an additional calling, namely the care and betterment of children given to them during school hours.  Board politics and hiring practices over the years benefited union members...which is a fact that no sane person in Scranton would dispute...but these same practices will ultimately harm the SSD's students through the budget cuts that are coming.

Finally, the ultimate "buck stops here" moment in this hot mess lies with the voting age population of Scranton.  As I noted in a related Facebook posting, institutionalized government graft is a part of Northeastern Pennsylvania's culture.  It's effectively seen as okay...in an area with limited economic opportunities, connections to government graft became for many Scranton residents an accepted form of upward mobility.  The problem though is that the greed driving the engine of government graft is unsustainable; eventually, so many pieces of the pie are taken that there are only crumbs left to educate students.

Scranton School Board Primary Election 2017

I still follow politics (more or less) in Scranton, and of all the races out there, the most interesting, by far, are those for open positions on the Scranton School Board.  With that in mind, here's a point of consideration for all you Scranton voters out there:  

YOU ARE CRAZY IF YOU VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE THAT HAS A FAMILY MEMBER WHO WORKS FOR THE DISTRICT.  

Granted that the mental health professionals out there (including my daughter Stinky) probably take offense to my use of the word "crazy" so how about "incredibly foolish" instead?  

Here's my logic for the above:  When these folks take office and they have to vote for either...

a) The fiscal health of the District

OR

b) The fiscal health of their family

...what do you think will win out in the end?  I can tell you who will lose...the taxpayers.  Yes, conflict of interest is a real thing, in spite of what many local politicians will have you believe.  Granted that the local school board in my neck of the woods isn't much better, although I'm reasonably sure that the president of our school board at least graduated from high school.  Now I know, the current Scranton School District board president Sheridan has a G.E.D., but just let that one sink in for a moment...the president of a school board failed to graduate from high school.  How is that not like nominating someone who dropped out of basic training to be head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  

(The U.S. Joint Chief's of Staff; all completed basic training)

For the record, having a G.E.D. doesn't speak to president Sheridan's intelligence...or the intelligence of anyone else with a G.E.D. for that matter.  What it does speak to though is his (specific) commitment to life-long learning and fitness to lead an organization that is designed to deliver formal education to children.  Call me crazy, but I somehow think that the folks running an educational system should have a vested interest in...and committment to...education.

Speaking of the President of the Scranton School Board, he too has a conflict of interest (in my opinion), namely that he is also President of the Scranton City Democratic Committee.  Given the choice between doing what's right for taxpayers OR bolstering his political party, what will Mr. Sheridan do?  I don't believe that these kinds of conflicts arise all the time, but consider this scenario:  A less-qualified by highly loyal party operative is looking for employment in the district and finds an open position.  The competition for that position is someone who lacks local political connections but is better qualified for the job.  Who wins?  Come on now, we all know that answer, and the Scranton School District is saddled with yet another life-long, politically connected employee.  It's a perverse "Circle of Life" kind of thing, but this time featuring weasels instead of lions.

The Scranton School District is headed for a state takeover, and while painful, I also think it's necessary.  Simply put, the Scranton School Board is incapable, mostly by virtue of competence (as in the lack of), of managing its way out of the current and long-simmering financial crisis that stands at more than $33.6 million.  The current board did not create this crisis, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania contributed to it in a significant way*, but in the end, this same current board has continued a long history of mismanagement and nepotism that goes back decades in Scranton.  They choose not to make tough choices so tough choices will be made for the next board.

* * * * * *

(*) There has been much written about Pennsylvania's public sector pension crisis, and I'll not add to that here, other than to say it's my opinion that the whole mess is a classic example of entrenched politics at it's very worst.  Legislators wanted richer pensions, and to get them they basically bought off the politically powerful teacher unions.  I don't blame teachers for getting better pensions; heck, who wouldn't want that?  Instead, this is a textbook example of why there shouldn't be career politicians in the first place.  Again, when personal interests of the elected compete with the public good, who usually loses?

Existential Terror & Graduate School

I'm more than halfway through my final graduate school class, which when completed leaves me with just an industry exam waiting to be completed before I could add letters after my name (which I won't).  The better time to write about this might be when I am actually done with things, but by then I'm probably going to be so full of relief that actually writing about it will be #127 on my list of things to do.  While "counting my chickens before they hatch" is a valid argument against this post, recent events have shown that I'm likely going to, in fact, pass this final class (and in the spirit of full disclosure, I've passed all of the others too).

Why did I even do this?  That's a good question.  I think part of it was my late Mom.  While I've noted many times in the past that my mother could be a difficult human being, she did truly value education.  While not a college graduate herself, she was never the less encouraging of her kids getting an education, and I know that she was secretly very proud when two of us earned college degrees.  Over the years I had mentioned to my mother that I thought about going back to school, and her response was always "well then just do it" (or something similar, all be it coupled with a taking of the Lord's name in vain, as an added form of punctuation).  While she passed away before I started school, I know she would be proud of my having gone back.

Another reason to do it was simply that I enjoy a challenge, even when I know it will be a royal pain in the posterior.  It's almost as if I can see the "suck" coming at me, and I never the less have to stand there and meet it head on.  It's far less about an actual and formal education and far more about validating to myself that I'm actually capable of doing it.  Call that one vanity, or maybe even better so, a kind of searching for simply being worthy ("Well I must be pretty okay if I can get through this"), but mostly call it the truth.

A final reason?  Well, at the risk of sounding hokey, I just enjoy learning.  Of all the things that I am, one thing that I absolutely know to be true is the fact that I simply enjoy learning new things.  Not just things that make me a better person, father, employee, etc., but things simply for the fun joy of learning something new.  That's as true a statement about Steve Albert as any could ever be made.

What made it an easier decision was the fact that my (former) employer offered a generous educational benefit, although it's worth noting that, when all is said and done, I will have paid for about 40% of the degree on my own.  That's an easy one to get down about, but hey, they paid for more than half of it, and while I'm not there anymore (I'm a "retiree"), I get to keep the graduate credits they paid for never the less.  Good deal if you ask me.

Striking Scranton Teachers

I had commented on a posting in Mike Sporer's blog Fresh Perspectives (link to that content HERE) related to the Scranton Teacher's strike.  Technical difficulties apparently made that comment null, void and nonexistent, but I did promise Mike a re-post.  In the finest of blogging traditions, I'll do my best to re-create that comment here (in other words, I'll also manage to milk a posting out of this...).


* * * * * *

Disclaimer:  I'll note that my ex-wife is a teacher in the Scranton School District and my oldest daughter is a teacher in a charter school in New York City.

* * * * * *

Regarding the striking Scranton teachers and the grossly incompetent school board that they are at odds with, well, there is plenty of blame to go around.

First, the word you hear shouted most loudly by the teachers is "Respect" (cue Aretha Franklin), but it's not a lack of respect that's at the heart of this labor dispute, it's money.  In the world of public union public relations, "respect" lends a more sympathetic ear than "cash".  Now I'm not faulting the teachers for wanting more money, as no one should be effectively forced to work for less each year*, but I am saying that there's just a bit of message manipulation going on as this labor dispute plays out, and people by the droves are falling for it.  Then again, many of these same people though actually elected the school board members that helped cause this mess in the first place.  I'm also thinking that Scranton's taxpayers won't like how "respect" ends up being reflected in their already too high tax bills.

Second, as a person who knows a word or two of the English language, I am truly tested to come up with words to describe the level of gross incompetence on display by the Scranton School Board.  Did the board president actually think that he could hire this 80th cousin, thrice removed, (or however he managed to down-play that relationship) as the district Superintendent, give her a contract with automatic raises and then tell other district employees "well, sorry, we don't have any money for you to get automatic raises"?  At a bare minimum, the district should be offering other district employees some kind of parity with the new Superintendent when it comes to annual compensation changes.  Had "Cousin Cy" negotiated a truly performance-based compensation system for the Superintendent, you know...one where raises have to be earned...the district would be in a better bargaining position.  But that's wishful thinking.  Also, the fact that the district has a nasty habit of...

a) Hiring relatives like it's some kind of Duggar family business
b) Spending money foolishly (such 300% excessive bus contracts)
c) Poorly prioritizing spending (Old textbooks?  That's okay, as the stadium has new turf!)

...only lends fuel to the argument made that they simply don't know what the heck they are doing.

Third, the entire labor-management system for public education in Pennsylvania is tragically broken.  Teachers, if they truly view themselves as professionals (and they are professionals by the way) should not be able to strike.  When was the last time you heard of striking doctors or lawyers?  Ponder that one for a moment.  Anyway, I do also believe though that teachers need protection from grossly incompetent local school boards, so the structural solution to this mess should be a state-wide collective bargaining agreement that would cover all of Pennsylvania's teachers.  The contract should have salary bands to reflect differences in the cost of living by location, but otherwise provide a level playing field for educational professionals.  It would also take the hacks...I mean local school boards...out of the business of negotiating contracts.

Lastly, the blame for this mess mostly falls to the feet of the about 20-30% of Scranton's voters who actually show up to the polls.  They voted for the current school board, putting connections, political affiliation and the right sounding ethnic last names ahead of actual qualifications.  Yes, only in Scranton would someone who looks like he's 15 but just happens to have the name "Robert Casey" be elected to help manage a 10,000 student educational system.




(*) Not getting a raise = working for less when you factor in inflation.

Labor Day 2015

Few things get folks more riled up than the subject of labor unions, and many take Labor Day as an opportunity to tout their value.  I'm not going there today.  Well maybe I am.  I have issues with labor unions, but I also recognize that sometimes they are essential.  Case in point:  Public school teachers.

There was a time when I thought that public school teachers should not be unionized.  How many other professionals (doctors and lawyers) have you known to go out on strike?  Then I had something of an epiphany:  Given how corrupt local school boards are, can you imagine just what kind of shenanigans would be happening if good teachers didn't have the protection of a labor union?

"Teacher Fran Jones fired for poor performance." 

Could very well actually mean...

"Teacher Fran Jones fired for not contributing to school board director Ty Goodwaddy's re-election campaign.".

Granted that teacher's unions are far from perfect.  For example, it's too hard to fire ineffective teachers.  In fact, given the debate centering on teacher evaluations, unions are making it difficult just to figure out who the ineffective teachers are (although if you get a good teacher aside and ask, they all can point out the rotten eggs), let alone performance manage them out of a district.  There are other issues as well (innovation, as in changing the construct of a school year, is another), but I don't want to pile on because in the arena of public education there are no clean hands.

In the end, I do think that labor, as a general concept, is under-valued in this country.  In many corners of the country working is not valued at all.  Perhaps in our desire to make the lives of our children better, we've gone too far, failing to teach the nobility that comes from working hard at any endeavor.  That needs to change.

I'll end this with a nice prayer from the Facebook page of The Episcopal Church.

Scranton School Board Follies: Giving your wife a raise

I reference THIS article.

"Director Cy Douaihy said the one-year contract means the district and union will be back at the bargaining table soon..."

Here is my question:  Why is Director Cy Douaihy even allowed to vote on this fact finding report (and soon to be contract)?  He has a direct personal financial stake in the agreement because his wife is a member of the bargaining unit.  On what planet is THAT NOT considered a conflict of interest?

This doesn't require further commentary or analysis.  Any school board director who has immediate family members that would benefit from a labor contract with the district should not be voting on the contract, period. The fact that this exists in the Scranton School District is yet more proof that education comes second to self-interest in the district.

Please, someone try to defend this, as I'd love to hear the argument FOR being allowed to give your family a raise using public money.

Response to Tom Borthwick's Comment, RE: Abington Heights Teachers

You can read my original posting and Tom's comment HERE.

* * * * * * * * 

Tom, with all due respect, you're trying to rationalize bad behavior, plain and simple.  Put yourself in the shoes of a student:

"You are nervous as heck about getting into college in the first place.  You are equally nervous as heck about asking a teacher...one that you trust...one that you have build a rapport with...to write you a recommendation letter for college.  You finally work up the courage and ask the teacher, only to be told no."

How does this make you (again, putting yourself in the shoes of the student) feel?  Words like "crushed" and "devastated" come to my mind. 

Now if you detect a note of passion in my writing here, it's because my three daughters all went through this same process; fortunately for them, they had teachers at Scranton High School who were willing to take the time (as you indicated you do) to do this in support of their students.  That's part of what makes teaching and teachers special:  truly being there for the students when they are needed the most.  Trust me, a student nervous about getting into college is about a needy as they come.

The above noted, what makes this whole mess even worse?  The fact that it's all about money.

Teachers can not simultaneously claim to be "for the students" while also being "for their own economic interests" when those two concepts collide.  They can't have it both ways, no more so than school district administrators can either, and I've been pretty critical of how school districts are run as well (case in point:  school districts allowing sports when academics are suspended during teacher strikes).

What's left for teachers?  Well pick one:

• Informational pickets
• Holding public forums
• Stop chaperoning ski club trips (and other similar types of non-academic activities)
• Binding arbitration (you know, the process by which taxpayer interest are secondary)
• Striking

What shouldn't be on the list?  That would be forgoing the writing of recommendation letters.

Tom, this is a shameful act on the part of Abington Heights teachers and I suspect you darn well know it.  While I applaud you for standing by your union brothers and sisters, at the end of the day I can't help but think that you...yourself...would not abide by this kind of union edict if that anxious student came to you and said "Mr Borthwick, I'm really nervous about getting into college.  Could you write me recommendation letter?".  No, I suspect that you'd write the letter, simply because I don't think you could live with yourself otherwise.

Side Note - Scranton School District Posting

Reference this posting:

Scranton School District:  Yes, It Is THAT Bad

After this story broke, I did something I normally never do:  I commented about the story on the Scranton Time's website.  Now there were well over a hundred comments by the evening of the story, but what comment wasn't listed?  That would be mine.  Apparently I must have violated some rule or another.  Maybe I used my own name (from what I gather, one is supposed to use a pseudonym, you know, like "Carlos Danger").  Maybe I wasn't snarky enough.  Maybe, since I said the teacher was innocent until proven guilty, I was off script.

What did I post?  Well basically a truncated version of the above referenced posting.

What's also interesting is that in as much as the Scranton Times made a big splash with the story initially, I haven't seen any follow-up.  It could be that there is nothing to follow-up on; it could be that the story was a bit too much for the Scranton Times to handle.  Scranton is a small town, and people in the Scranton School District are mightily connected.  We shall see.

Yes, we shall see.  This is a great example of an area where journalism can make a difference.  The real issue in this case isn't the DUI allegation.  Hell, people around here get accused of DUI all the time; at most you read some small-type legal notice about some poor soul having to enter into some program.  No, the real issue here is that once again we have evidence of nepotism and glaring conflicts of interest in a local school district.  And no one so much as blinks an eye.  Well I did, and will.

Now in defense of the Scranton Times, they do, from time to time, talk about public sector corruption in it's many forms (including the family tree that constitutes the Scranton School District's organization chart).  But I don't think they do enough.  What can they do?  Well I (more or less) repeat my previous challenge:


Dear Scranton Times:

Please publish a list/chart showing the interpersonal relationships between past and current Scranton School District administrators (including past and present school board members) and other district employees.  Let's see, in black-n-white, all of the family relationships.  For bonus points, also consider listing the names of district employees who are related to local politicians.  How many people know, for example, that Scranton City Council's Janet Evans has a son who is district employee?

I will be waiting, all be it impatiently.

Sincerely, 

S. Elmer Albert

Scranton School District: Yes, It Is THAT Bad

A Scranton School District teacher was arrested and charged with DUI and child endangerment.  This is not a good situation, but hey, this person is innocent until proven guilty and she should be treated a such.

Article HERE.

What really bothers me about this story?  It's the fact that she is the wife of the Scranton School District's superintendent, William King.

Yes, you read that one correctly:  she ultimately reports up to her husband.

Please do tell me:  Outside of a family-run business (which, apparently, the Scranton School District now qualifies...), when is it ever appropriate to have one spouse report to another?

How do we know that principals do not court favor with Mr King by treating his wife with kit gloves?

How do other teachers know that Ms King's classroom assignments, number of students, and the like are not influenced by her husband (or people wanting to court favor with her husband)?

How can taxpayers be assured that Ms King is worth the salary we pay her when clearly she has direct, regular and personal access to the district's key decision maker?

What inside information has Ms King received that she has been able to use to better her career?

The answer to all of the above questions is unqualified WE DON'T KNOW.  And that is the problem.  This whole situation is a MESS and speaks loudly to why taxpayers have little confidence in the operations of the district.

As for me, I'd like to see two things come out of this:

1. To the Scranton Times - Please publish an organization chart showing the relationships between Scranton School District employees and current/former district administrators/leaders.  I think the visual would be shocking.
2. To the Scranton School Board - Please do the RIGHT THING and pass a real anti-nepotism policy. Yes, in such a policy, on occasion a good teacher may not get a job due to a family relationship.  So be it. However, under the current situation, just as many good teachers DO NOT get jobs because THEY ARE NOT related to someone of influence.  In the end, the talent argument in favor of nepotism (just saying that makes me feel, well, filthy) doesn't hold water.

I'm not holding my breath for either to happen.

Follow-up to yesterday's posting, RE: The Scranton School District

As a follow-up to yesterday's posting, I was asked about my feelings regarding challengers for open school district board seats receiving political contributions from district vendors.  It's a reasonable question, so here's my basic thought:  I don't think that it's necessarily problematic for a challenger to receive contributions from vendors.  Why?  Well two reasons come to mind:

1. It's entirely reasonable that a challenger may not, in fact, know which businesses have contracts with the school district.  I can't find such as list on-line at the Scranton School District website (link HERE).
2. There is no guarantee that a challenger will, in fact, win (and therefore end up being in a position to influence district vendor decisions).

There are a slew of other reasons why this is okay as well, but the bottom line for me is that elected officials MUST be held to a HIGHER STANDARD of conduct than the rest of us...challengers included...precisely because they are trusted with public money.  

The above noted, I do believe that the "higher road" here would be for a successful challenger (who has received money from district vendors...knowingly or otherwise) to return contributions from district vendors or donate amounts equivalent to those contributions to charity. 

What about a challenger actively soliciting money from businesses that they know are district vendors?  Yeah, that doesn't pass the smell test, but in reality there is no perfect system for preventing all graft, and it's simply not possible to legislate something like "honorable intentions".  At best I think we can and we should be reasonable in how we approach things like preventing "pay to play".  The current system under which a sitting director like Bob Sheridan can actively solicit and receive contributions from district vendors represents a door that is simply too wide open to impropriety.  

As noted yesterday, Director Sheridan should return his district vendor contributions and refuse any future contributions as long as he is a sitting director.  

Scranton School Board - Yes, it's that bad.

Robert (Bob) Sheridan is a sitting Scranton School Board Director and, as noted in the Friday (May 17th) edition of the Scranton Times, has no problem accepting political campaign donations from vendors who provide services to the district.

Now according to a policy which makes sense pretty much nowhere OTHER THAN on the Scranton School Board, sitting directors CAN receive donations from district vendors.  Yes, they can.  How, then, would conflicts of interest, such as "quid-pro-quo" situations, be prevented?  They won't, which is precisely the problem.  The only thing preventing "pay to play" in the Scranton School District is the honor and integrity of the district's directors.

Wait, excuse me for a moment.

I'm back.  Sorry, I just laughed myself into a 20 minute coma after writing that sentence about "honor and integrity".

Yes, for real, taxpayers basically have to reply on school board directors to be honest and act in the best interest of children, not outside business interests.  Said Mr Sheridan in the above referenced article, "I work for the better education of our kids".  To which I say the following:

Prove It.

Director Sheridan offers no proof that political contributions from district vendors haven't influenced his votes because this is inherently something that can't be proven or disproved with any degree of certainty.  It's a perfect place for the politician to reside, namely that murky space where money flows and attached strings are basically invisible to all but the donor and the recipient.  In a situations like this, I'm reminded of the following Hunter S. Thompson quote:

"In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile — and the rest of us are f&^%d until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely"

I don't know if Thompson had ever heard of Scranton, but his comment fits the nature of NEPA politics very well.

Now I've waxed philosophical about this for long enough, so now it's time for what we call at work "the ask":

Dear Director Sheridan, 

I am formally asking you to return all district vendor political campaign contributions you have received this election cycle and refuse to take any in the future.  Accepting these contributions creates an impression of corruption and impropriety that simply doesn't have to exist.  Now I get the logic, namely that sitting directors are at a disadvantage by not being able to receive vendor contributions, but so what!  It's a reasonable trade-off to eliminate another avenue for graft.  Let's also not forget that sitting directors have several advantages over challengers in that they get to plaster their names and words all over district communications and get lots of free television air-time via cable public access channels. 

Please prove that you truly do work for the betterment of education by eliminating what is nothing more than a blatant avenue for impropriety.

Best Regards, 
Steve Albert
Resident & taxpayer

Director Sheridan is free to contact me via the blog and I'll gladly post his reply in this space, unedited and word for word.

I'll be waiting.

Probably for a long time.

5 Questions for Tom Borthwick

Preface
I've known Tom Borthwick for a few years now and I consider him to be both a friend and a decent human being.  Given  the decent human being status, I'm hard-pressed to understand why he insists on running for elective office.  Never the less he is, in fact, running for an open Scranton School District director position in the upcoming election.  In an effort to educate myself, amuse myself and maybe educate others, I've asked Tom to answer five questions related to the operation of the Scranton School District specifically and public education in general.  My questions, and Tom's answers, are noted below.

By the way, you can link to Tom's website at TomBorthwick.com.


Ground Rules
I wrote the questions and Tom answered them.  Pretty simple actually.  There has been no editing done on my part.

Other candidates wishing to answer these questions are free to do so and I will publish their responses exactly as provided to me, without any editing or editorial comments.  You can send your answers to me at genagrippa@gmail.com.

I do reserve the right to comment on the responses in a separate posting.


5 Questions
My questions are noted in dark red text; Tom's answers are noted in gray text.

Topic 1: Nepotism
Local school districts across Northeastern Pennsylvania have earned a
reputation for employing the relatives of district officials. This
reputation extends to the Scranton School District. This has created a
general sense of corruption and a belief that the district is not being
run for the benefit of students but instead for the benefit of the
politically connected.
Question:
Do you share in the belief that the Scranton School District has a
nepotism "problem"? If no, why? If yes, what will you do as a Director to
change this perception?
There certainly is a perception that nepotism is a problem in the
district.  The Board did, at one time, have an anti-nepotism policy and I
doubt it has been rescinded.  Obviously it has not done anything to
counter how the public views the Board.  As one of nine, I wouldn’t have
total control over hiring, but I can say that my family members are all
comfortable in their professions and I don’t plan on using the district to
enrich myself or my blood.  That’s not why I’m running.  The best way to
change the perception, I think, is to simply not hire family.  It won’t be
an overnight thing, but a “lead by example” situation that would have to
happen over time.

Topic 2: School Funding
In Pennsylvania, public school districts are primarily funded through a
combination of wage and property taxes. In areas with strong property tax
bases (such as suburban Philadelphia), districts seem to be well off
financially. In areas such as Scranton, the opposite is the case.
Question:
Do you favor a substantial change in how school districts are funded in
Pennsylvania? If so, what kind of change would you advocate?
Recently, bills have been proposed in the General Assembly that would
shift the funding burden from districts to the state.  I am 100% in favor
of this.  Sadly, the bills have gone nowhere.  Right now, there is a huge
disparity in funding between districts.  Wealthy suburban districts
obviously have more money to play with.  They also tend to perform better
on tests.  The opposite is true in urban districts.  If property taxes
were eliminated and sales taxes were upped 1% (along with the removal of
silly sales tax exemptions for things like candy), that would be better
for the state and for districts.  Property owners would see more money in
their pockets and schools would be funded equally. This would create
parity, leveling the playing field for kids across the state.

Topic 3: School Director Qualifications
Being the director in a public school district is equivalent to being a
director in a small-medium sized corporation. Directors in the public
sector almost always elected with specific areas of expertise in mind,
such as legal, human resources, or industry specific skills. In
Pennsylvania, school district Directors are not required to have any
qualifications for the position, other than simply winning a popularity
contest.
Question:
Do you favor a system of qualifications for school directors? Why or why not?
This is a tough one.  I believe that Directors should be qualified for the
position, but I also believe that the electorate should be the group that
decides what the word “qualifications” means.  What would I like to see in
a Director?  Obviously, I want to see wisdom, experience, and some level
of higher education.  Proven dedication to the community and volunteer
service is also important to me.  I understand that I’m kind of describing
myself here, but a lot of other candidates do and have fit this
description.  So while I would like to see qualified people in there, as
I’m sure many do, I wouldn’t rob the electorate the chance to define what
“qualified” means.


Topic 4: Labor Relations
Public school districts are one of the few areas of employment where
strikes still remain a facet of labor relations.
Question:
What can be done to eliminate labor strikes in Pennsylvania's public schools?
Currently, the system is silly.  Strikes have lost their teeth because
districts are mandated to reach a certain amount of instructional time
regardless of strikes.  The purpose of a strike, at its core, is to
demonstrate to employers the value of work done by employees.  So how do
we make that happen?  On the board level, there is nothing I can do.  I
can only hold an ideological position and not affect state legislation.
Frankly, I’m up in the air and open to listening to all sides here.  My
instinct is to say that we need to have fair and equitable contracts and
we need a means for district employees to get them.  Is last best offer
binding arbitration the way?  Maybe.  It would encourage both districts
and unions to offer reasonable, center-driven contractual proposals due to
the threat of an arbitrator rejecting an extreme proposal that both groups
tend to start with.  I also feel that strikes, and the threat of strikes,
cause major inconvenience and are a PR tactical tool that district unions
utilize to draw attention to their cause.  I’m loathe to rob unions of
their voice because I believe strongly that they deserve one.  Workers are
continually marginalized across all sectors of the economy and so I would
be willing to listen to their perspective (and really any perspective) on
how to avoid strikes while maintaining workers’ rights.


Topic 5: High School Sports
At at time of dramatically reduced state funding for education, the
Scranton School District is most likely moving forward with a significant
upgrade to the sports facilities at West Scranton High School.
Question:
Are public schools in general (and the Scranton School District in
particular) spending money on athletic programs and facilities that should
be spent on academic programs and facilities?
You know, I recently read that in Europe, sports programs are tied to a
community and region and supported as such.  Here, local sports programs
are supported by high schools.  I don’t have a problem with that because I
think it’s important to offer kids after-school programs.  I know that a
lot of kids, particularly in low-income districts, benefit from the
community and discipline provided by extra-curricular activities.
Now, the issue that you’re getting at is funding priority.  Should sports
take precedence over academics?  The answer is never.  I was once at a
meeting about teacher layoffs that also had a discussion about who would
be hired as a new coach.  The coach issue was first.  Once that was
settled, more than half of the parents and kids there left the meeting.
There is a problem of priorities when something like that occurs.  I’m not
devaluing sporting programs at all, but the focus needs to be academics –
that’s the purpose of a school and, in terms of what is more important to
fund, it’s a no-brainer for me: classrooms.

Scranton School Board Vacancy

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
- Will Rogers 


And so it goes, after the Scranton School District last night filled a vacancy:

...that was created by the quasi-mysterious departure of a sitting board member
...via a process that gave interested candidates 48 hours to submit their interest
...where a decision was made in the course of about 2 hours after the letters of interest were received
...and which didn't really involve any interviewing

You can read all about it HERE.

How would I describe this process?

Hmmmmm

Oh, how about this?  Insane.  Yes, that's it.  Insane.

The last vacancy I had at work took approximately 4 months to fill, but hey, I know that far greater care and effort needs to go into hiring a corporate trainer than it does deciding how will make policy regarding the education of the nation's most precious assets.  Hell, we actually interviewed people!  What's more, the person we hired wasn't an insider, wasn't someone who gave favors to anyone else, wasn't someone with high name recognition.  Yes, silly us in the private sector:  we took our time and hired someone who had the best qualifications for the job.

Let me be even more blunt that I've already been so far:  the Scranton School Board stinks of corruption, back-room deals, and politics for the sake of personal enrichment.  It's primary focus seems to be on granting power to board members and protecting employees, not the education of our region's most precious assets.

In the midst of all this mess, there is one bright spot;  Director Kathleen McGuigan seems to have finally had enough.  Usually a voice of reason for the board, Mrs McGuigan now seems intent on waging a legal battle against its latest actions.  I wish her well.  If recent events at the local Intermediate Unit tell us anything, it's that bad things happen when good people keep their mouths shut.  

Good hunting Mrs McGuigan.

Teachers reviewing Principals? Why how dare they!

The Scranton Times reported yesterday that a proposal by Scranton School District teachers to evaluate district principals has drawn the ire of at least one group.  According to the article, Attorney Frank J. Tunis Jr, representing the Scranton Association of Administrators and Supervisors said that...

"The last thing we're going to accept is to have the people we supervise evaluating us."

Having just gone through my own employer's performance evaluation process, I reacted to the article with a mix of amusement and disgust.

Now I've said many times on this blog that I have mixed feelings about labor unions, which makes me at least somewhat suspicious of the underlying intentions of the Scranton Federation of Teachers (SFT, which is the union representing district teachers) in this matter.  They have helped to create the adversarial relationship that exists within the professional ranks in the Scranton School District, so feigning shock at the sad state of teacher - administrator relations is silly (at best).  This noted though, I think that it's a GREAT IDEA for those who are supervised to provide feedback on their supervisors.  Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that this kind of feedback should be a formal part of the the performance evaluation of every leader, in just about every organization.

Why?  I think that performance feedback is a lot like chocolate:  a little is good, a lot is great.  What's more, feedback shouldn't just flow upward, it should also flow from the sides as well.  Think of the process as providing "360 degree  feedback": from the below (those who report to a leader) from the top (the person to whom the leader reports) and from the sides (peers that the leader interacts with on a regular basis).  A leader should be welcoming the perspective of others, especially those that rely on the leader for guidance and support.  This is in keeping with my perspective that leadership is, in fact, a form of service. What successful service provider doesn't solicit feedback from customers?

By the way, my 2012 performance appraisal included feedback from the person I supervise, just as every performance appraisal I've had going back 10+ years has included feedback from my direct reports.  I'm not just advocating upward feedback as part of some intellectual exercise...this is cooking that I, in fact, eat myself.  Have I agreed with all of the feedback I receive from my direct reports over the years?  Of course not.  Then again I've not agreed with all of the feedback I've received from the leaders I've reported to either.  Disagreeing is not the same as discounting though, and in fact most of the feedback I have received from direct reports has been very insightful.  What's more, the process of determining why you may disagree with a particular piece of feedback can be very educational.

In the end, the statement by Attorney Tunis sounds elitist, is shortsightedness and is in keeping with circa 1950 leadership theory.  Mark my words:  this whole mess will not end well.

Fiscal Crisis? Not in the Scranton School District!

Yes, apparently all the state budget cuts haven't hit the Scranton School District.  Everything is fine.  There is extra money just laying around.

How do I know the above is true?  Well among a few other things, I saw this little ditty in the Tuesday edition of the Scranton Times:

"The cost for the West Scranton Intermediate School gymnasium floor project will now be at least $168,437 more, with directors voting to install a hardwood floor instead of a synthetic floor.  The project, now at more than $1.1 million, includes major underground work for stabilization."

Now in fairness, I've played basketball on both hardwood and synthetic floors, and without doubt the hardwood floor is better.  Oh, and if money were no obstacle, the cost difference wouldn't matter.  But money is an obstacle here.  A big obstacle, as a matter of fact.  In fact it's a $168,437 obstacle.

Don't let the enormous size of building projects and school districts budgets fool you:  every amount counts when you are actually in a fiscal crisis.  School district budgets are like home budgets in that regard; if you are barely paying your bills you don't add luxuries.  But then again the Directors of the Scranton School District apparently don't think that there is a crisis.  My point in all of this cynicism is that the district shouldn't be spending any extra money on projects, let alone increasing the cost of a project by over 10% for reasons that quite frankly escape me.

Maybe a hardwood floor will cost less in the long run. I suspect though that, given the district's history of poor strategic facilities planning, this has more to do with personal preferences and an over-emphasis on athletics than anything else.

For the record, if there is an absolute, burning need to spend $168,000, I can think of a few better options:

• 3360 more textbooks could be purchased (at an assumed cost of $50/book)
• 1411 Kindle e-readers could be purchased (at an average cost of $119/reader)
• 168 laptops could be purchased (at an assumed cost of $999/machine)

Apparently though athletic preference is more important than textbooks or other tools that can be used to teach students.

Road Apples, #97

Toys...I continue to spend time learning how to fully use my now (very) smart phone.  The phone in question is a Palm Pre Plus and I continue to be impressed with all the "stuff" it can do. I have something like a dozen apps that I've installed on it, and some have turned out to be really useful, such as Weather.com.  Yesterday I got it set up to sync with my gmail calendar (now I just have to start using it...the gmail calendar that is).  Very smart indeed.

Chief Duffy...The saga continues of Scranton's police chief who insists, *gasp*, on actually fighting crime.  Why the audacity of the guy!  As I wrote earlier, Scranton's police union has filed a grievance, complaining that the chief shouldn't be stopping crime.  You simply can't make this stuff up.  As I mentioned this whole situation to a colleague at work we were both amazed at just how utterly idiotic this makes the police union look.  This is, I suppose, what happens when you let your emotions (emotions such as "I want to really screw the mayor because I think he is screwing me") get the best of you.

Graduation...In the "you are really getting old" department, my oldest daughter is graduating from college early next month.  Go figure...I think of myself as barely being an adult, but yet now I have a child who is getting a college degree.  Damn, life truly is what happens when you are busy making other plans.

Janet Evans...There has been something of an on-going war in the local media about the status of Scranton's City Council President, Janet Evans.  Specifically, Ms Evans is on a disability leave from her job as an English Teacher at Scranton High School due to some kind of back injury.  Apparently the Scranton School District (SSD for short) believes that they owe no one an explanation as to her status, how much she is getting paid, etc.  Not helping matters is the fact that the SSD's chief lawyer is the chairman of the local Democratic Party.  Anyway, it is puzzling that Ms Evans can sit for long hours at a Scranton City Council meeting but yet can't sit for long hours at school.  What's more, to her credit, she looks very healthy.  The bottom line though is that if you want to be paid by the public, then you should be prepared for lots of public scrutiny, period.

Conflict of Interest...Speaking of the SSD, the Chairman of the local Democratic Party would, you think, be inclined to do whatever he could to minimize the damage done to local elected Democrats, right?  I would think so, especially a Democrat who has some popularity, such as the previously mentioned Janet Evans. Fair enough.  What's not fair?  Well how about the fact that this same Chairman is ALSO the chief lawyer for the Scranton School District.  This leaves me asking the following question:  When Attorney McGrath is facing a conflict between his duty as Solicitor for the SSD (protecting the interests of the SSD and the taxpayers who pay his salary) and his role as local party boss & protector of Democrats (by, for example, protecting Ms Evans), what does he do?  Here's the answer that exists at least in my part of the private sector:  You simply don't allow even the appearance of such a conflict of interest in the first place.

I'll say this again...and again...and again...it is a conflict of interest for the same person to be BOTH a party official AND a Solicitor for a governmental body.  Recent events point this out in a most glaring manner.

Will this glaring conflict be resolved?  Of course not, as those same SSD Board members who could force Attorney McGrath to make a choice between these two conflicting roles will not precisely because they are beholden to him as the local Party Boss.