The expectation of the public with regard to public schools is that elected school boards and appointed administrators will guard the public purse. Plainfield's school district is no exception.
It was with the public purse in mind that I wrote Monday's post 'More shoes to drop in schools certification mess?' (see here), which has gathered 10 comments from various viewpoints to date.
My point was that the public expectation of getting to the bottom of HOW and WHY 'Jane Doe 1' and 'Jane Doe 2' came to be appointed to positions for which they were not certified is entirely reasonable and justified.
Demanding clarity, transparency and finality on this question does not demean any of the parties involved -- the Board of Ed, Dr. Gallon, or Dr. Bailey.
That being said, someone has to be ACCOUNTABLE for the decision NOT ONLY to hire 'Jane Doe 1' and 'Jane Doe 2' for positions for which they were not certified, but to pay them salaries that were appropriate for CERTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, but not for those WITHOUT THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.
All the dust kicked up about 'invasions of privacy' avoids getting at the basic issue here: Who decided to hire and pay these individuals, and when?
Subsequent to the Monday post, we learned in today's Courier story (see here) on Tuesday's BOE meeting that --
... [Board members] Logan-Leach and Wilma Campbell both suggested that the board reconsider a practice they said Gallon started upon his July 2008 hiring, through which individual board members do not have background information on prospective hirings forwarded to them prior to a vote. Gallon said the policy was put in place to protect "information I've deemed confidential,'' (emphasis added -- DD).Board member Patricia Barksdale is quoted as saying the change in practice was agreed to 'to ensure the privacy of our staff'. So now the question is: By whom? Was the practice changed by the entire Board? And did Campbell and Logan-Leach agree to it?
On its face, the change in practice is troubling. It means that the elected Board of Education, which is to be the competent authority in all school hirings (and salaries) has abrogated its responsibility and must now operate 'in the dark' if the Superintendent so chooses. How can they discharge their responsibilities with regard to guarding the public purse if they are spoon-fed only the information the Superintendent deems they should have? (Be sure to read Maria Pellum's response on this point below, and my reply -- DD.)
Were 'Jane Doe 1' and 'Jane Doe 2' hired AFTER THIS NEW POLICY CHANGE WAS PUT IN PLACE? If so, this is even more troubling as it suggests that Dr. Gallon could have avoided disclosing to the Board of Ed material facts concerning 'Jane Doe 1' and 'Jane Doe 2', to wit: that they did not have the required certifications for the posts (AND SALARIES) to which they were being appointed and the information about one them having had difficulties with their teaching license in Florida owing to alleged 'moral turpitude'.
All this should make it perfectly clear why it is necessary to get to the very plain bottom of how these two came to be hired sans certifications.
Further, we need to get over the phony 'privacy' issues here. In my view, no one who expects to have a job paid out of taxpayer funds -- general government or public schools -- can have ANY EXPECTATION that their name, their qualifications (or lack thereof) and their salary are PRIVATE information. New Jersey case law and rulings by the Government Records Council make this perfectly clear. One can go online at the Courier and learn the salary of any public employee. If there ARE privacy issues, qualifications, certification, salary and name are NOT among them.
(ASIDE: To those who felt I was somehow attacking Dr. Bailey, that is not the case. But we need to get to the bottom of who exactly made this hiring decision. Since she was both Acting Superintendent when Dr. Gallon was appointed and subsequently Human Resources Director, she is in the mix, like it or not. The issue -- as I see it -- is to sort out who is responsible for the hiring.)
Public schools have always taught values, and Plainfield's are no exception.
Whether it's with Kindergartners who are taught to 'Cross only at the corner' and 'Don't litter', to older students coached to 'Tell the truth' and 'Play fair', public schools are in the business of teaching -- and modeling -- habits and attitudes that society values.
The question in this certifications mess is: What values are being modeled for our students and our community?
Why weren't 'Jane Doe 1' and 'Jane Doe 2' originally hired as Coordinators -- at salaries appropriate for that title -- with the understanding that Dr. Gallon wanted them as members of his Cabinet and that when they achieved their certifications he would move to have their job titles (and salaries) upgraded? Wouldn't this have been a better modeling of values than we have gotten?
If no one takes accountability for the initial hiring decision, the schools' role in values training becomes a mere charade.
As Dr. Gallon's memo issued after Tuesday's evidently raucous Board meeting says, 'Unbecoming conduct and that which does not reflect positively on the District, its schools, professionals, and its students are prohibited'. To which I say, 'Amen'.
If no one takes accountability for the initial hiring decision, the trust which the public places in its elected Board of Ed and the District's administrative leadership will be weakened.
And trust is the glue that holds everything together.
- Plainfield Today: "More shoes to drop in schools certifications mess?"
- Courier, 12/16/09: "Plainfield schools chief issues warning about conduct"
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
10 comments:
Dan,
What the paper missed to write is that while BOE members don't have documents sitting on the table at the time of vote, BOE members are welcome to stop by the Human Resources Department and review all files they deem pertinent. What is more, Ms. Campbell said that she didn't have the time to do this, so let's be fair, documents were or are available, but there needs to be someone willing to look at them.
Maria -- Thanks for the comment and for supplying missing information.
However, considering that most, if not all, of the Board of Ed members have 'day jobs' -- some of which take them great distances from Plainfield -- and that they are already taxed by having to wade through the humongous (90 pages is not unusual) BOE agendas and backup info, requiring them to drop by the school district offices -- which are only open during regular business hours -- does not seem to me fair or reasonable, given the circumstances.
Is it done because of worries about leaks from within the Board? Are potential leaks of info something up with which we must put if we are to have some sense of democracy?
This has becoming well beyond one-sided. We all know and Dr. Gallon said publicly that there have been many people with certification issues before and during him and no one objected. In fact at the November meeting it was said publicly that there were over 100 people many of which were teachers teaching students that were NOT CERTIFIED just a few years ago.
We must have nothing to do in Plainfield. This is an old story. The issue have been addressed and the ladies in question now have their certifcation. To answer your question Dan as to how it happened the job posting as Dr. Gallon read and waved several read have or be eilgible for NJ certifcation. Duh, if you don't live in NJ or work here you won't have it. He also openly discussed the process he went through for ceritication in NJ. so, we can keep thinking that something was done secrety. Like you said Dan he could have put them in another position not requiring certifation if he just wanted them to be hired and they join the other $100K plus administrator with NO CERITIFICATIONS or even DEGREES for that matter. But he didnt. Either he was dumb or had nothing to hide. Dr. Gallon is NOT dumb.
And if a Board Member doen't have time to do their due diligence don't be a Board member. The information is there and I would not want my personal information sent out in the public.
Dan,
The reason that was given to change the past way of having files at the table was not only the many leaks that were going around, but confidential information such as Social Security Number, and whatever else is deemed as confidential. Let's face it, nowadays with all the fraud that is out there, leaks could lead to a potential stolen identity.
I personally feel that the BOE, who has a designated Human Resources BOE member, could get this person to personally be the one in charge of verifying data. I am not sure what that will involve, but one person of all nine could be doing this, specially if you have chosen to be assigned to the Human Resources Committee. The person might have duties far away, might have a million more things to do, but when you run to be elected for any position you should know, or have an idea, of the commitment that this position will take from you, if you can't, then be honest, let constituents know this, and let constituents decide whether they want to take the chance of having someone who has no time to perform at a 100%.
As a side note, it would be interesting to learn how other BOE handle this situation.
Thanks Dan for giving the space on this one.
Can Someone say "Redacted?" This should solve the so-called confidential information issue in the fils for the Board Members. I agree that Board Members, when required to vote to hire senior staff members, should have the information prior to the vote and in their board packages. It's about their fiduciary responsibility. This is not private industry, this is public government and tax dollars.
Certification in NJ is relatively straight forward, either you have it or you do not. If you do not then there are paths that one can follow that leads to certification. I want to know the process for credential verification, before it reaches the Board. I understand why the Board would approve the recommendation which was based on the assumption that a high level employee had completed the due diligence and the individuals presented to them have been fully vetted. It’s the process that has to be clarified. As for Dr. Gallon, clearly you stepped on some toes, so be it, that’s part of leadership, and tells me that you are heading in the right direction. I hope that you will weather this storm and continue to work for the students of Plainfield. Remember this too shall pass.
Ever notice that the same "anonymous" user posts in Gallon's favor between 10-11 every day? It would be interesting to trace the IP address. Might be interesting to see it come up as PPS
2:02 p.m
I agree wholeheartedly!!!!!
I said the same thing when this issue first broke. These ladies had been here for well over a year and for this matter to become public and get solved within no time tells me somebody was out to get Gallon.When the Jerry Green called for an audit (he did the same to PMUA) I knew that politics had gotten into the equation.
I agree with the thought that people are now being held accountable and that Gallon is starting to shalke things up. When words like dictator, directives, intimidation, are thrown around, you bet that some people are getting called on the carpet.
Gallon keep on doing what you are doing for our district and keep focus on the kids even when too many of the adults dont.
p.s. After reading the superintendents respone to the PEA letter I have gained respect for his intellect and lost respect for the PEA 's motives. Cristie, get rid of all the unions!!!!!!!
Maria - you left out the fact the BOE members have to schedule appointments to view personnel files in HR. I understand that this was not an easy appointment to make and it was strongly discouraged. Further if our Board members are sworn to uphold and maintain confidentiality where needed why not hold them accountable. Last I checked resumes do not contain ss#'s. As copies are made of the files, why can't items be blacked out (like the CIA??)If this has been a practice for years why now is it such an issue? That creates another layer of film over that word we are throwing around "transparancy!" I do not believe that delivering packets to Board members is "throwing confidential items out in the universe!" Public employees have public records. We serve the community. Went you enter into the public sector your information becomes just that, public.
Perhaps there needs to be a statewide audit of these positions, as well as those in govt. Our tax dollars are being blown on unqualified employees that can simply buy their certificates. No wonder the kids come out the way they do and why our taxes are outrageous. Its not just Dr Gallon, its widespread and needs to be fixed. If they lied and are not qualified, fire them immediately! Maybe even file charges...its fraud!
Post a Comment