Many, many thanks to the email tip about this column in today's BCCT. As you could see from my avalanche of weekend postings, that there is not a lot of time during the week to post and read.
I'm not blind to the fact that there is a lot of ill will on both sides of this issue that needs to be overcome.
Morrisville needs to change fast
Not everyone uses a new year to turn over a new leaf, and that seems especially true in the Morrisville School District, which is really too bad.
If there's any place where a lot of very decent people could drastically improve a situation just by improving their behavior, this is the place.
But as of last week, all sides remain guilty of constant, brutal sniping and undermining in this little school system where voters have reversed plans for a new high school, saying they just can't afford one.
A new dollar-driven majority, emboldened by the voter mandate, has been beating its chest like a bully for a year. And those who'd so hoped for a new school and the borough rejuvenation they believed it would foster, have been noisily licking their wounds as even deeper cutbacks are threatened.
One ousted school board member cried at a meeting Jan. 2, where proposed cuts were outlined.
“They just don't care about our kids,” she sniffled.
After the meeting, a current board member said she believes administrators “retaliated” against the community by padding the preliminary budget for 2008. The board needs to show the professionals who's boss, she said.
Lots of drama and still very little productive talk about teaching kids well at a reasonable cost. Agreeing on what's reasonable will be the challenge.
The stated purpose of the Jan. 2 special meeting was to vote on a resolution to cap the next budget increase at 4.4 percent to “send a message.” It means there would be no special exceptions allowed above that cap even if the money is needed.
The minority view was that budget rigidity could put the district in a bad place in the event of an emergency the district couldn't pay for.
“You'll bankrupt the schools,” accused one naysayer. “I'd rather bankrupt the schools than the town,” answered a defender of the plan.
It's that kind of inflammatory back-and-forth that keeps the district stuck in second gear.
Here's the bottom line: This community didn't support construction of a new school, but that doesn't means it supports gutting the whole system. New-school proponents need to move past their disappointment and decide how best to support and improve the existing schools. That won't get done by castigating the opposition or weeping.
The majority, drunk with power, should stop “sending messages” and take practical steps to ensure kids have updated, safe, properly staffed buildings stocked with the necessary school supplies and equipment.
Administrators can foster cooperation by playing fair. Not one mentioned to the board last month that there was a deadline for a resolution to cap the budget. That necessitated the hastily called special meeting, where board members indicated they felt hoodwinked.
School board President Bill Hellman, an accountant who led the call for the cap, told me while he thinks the superintendent and business and operations manager “seem like very nice people,” their business acumen “worries” him.
Others worry that while Hellman may be very good with a dollar, he isn't trained to run viable schools. He and the rest of the board have to count on staff for that.
That's going to require mutual respect and trust.
Times have surely changed, but there'd be no danger of bankrupting the schools or the town if decent people would only bury the hatchets —it will take a mass grave — so that calmer, cooler, more professional, good-natured heads and hearts can prevail. It's possible.
Kate Fratti, whose column appears on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, wonders if enough leaves can be turned quickly enough to make a difference fast.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I suppose Fratti has a point about sniping.
However, after years and years of WOROB tactics, people of good sense, decorum and intelligence have seen that a reasoned response to critical issues doesn't work. It is sad to say (and not a very good model for our children) but the only wheel that gets greased is the squeaky one. If we don't learn from WOROB's play book, we will always be shouted down and unheard.
If ever there was a case of preaching to the choir, it's here, and I agree with you 100%. I have watched the obnoxious behavior of the audience members in the past, many of whom are on the school board at present. I'm all for letting them take their turns on the wheel of karma to see what it's like. Reasoned response does not accomplish much.
I feel the same frustration. It's somwhat of an ethical dilemma: do you stick to what you believe to be fair play and possibly get nothing accomplished? Or do you go the route of what works (i.e. the squeaky wheel)?
To play devil's advocate, the NSN's probably also feel that being reasonable doesn't work and therefore they play the part of the squeaky wheel. I could be wrong, it could just be their nature to be abrasive. I don't know.
To put a whimsical spin on this topic, check out this link.
"...the NSN's probably also feel that being reasonable doesn't work and therefore they play the part of the squeaky wheel..."
That's kind of you, Peter, and shows your ethical and human side, but the fact of the matter is I allowed every opinion to be voiced. It was the way I structured the rules. Even Paul Bunting, whose opinion was often overlooked before I was pres. expressed gratitude to me that I created a forum where everyone's opinion could be heard.
Never-the-less, when Mr. Worob did not get his way, even after being allowed to present many hours of testimony at the expense of board business, and found that others still did not agree with him or react to the issues in the same manner, he took a stance of "You're either with me or against me". Hence began his railing and ranting. He interrupted and shouted down everyone he could. He abused his floor privileges. In essence, he filibustered.
When he was voted out of office, he continued this tactic from the other side of the microphone, and set an example to all others (an example that became echoed in Falls Township by friends of his there).
You cannot, in all honesty, claim that those who this blog lables "NSN's", many of whom now sit on the dias, ever gave reasoned discourse a chance.
Please don't misunderstand me. I do not condone railing, ranting, or shouting people down. (Who doesn't enjoy a good filibuster now and again). I was merely playing devil's advocate. But you've kind of made my point, Ken, by pointing out how obnoxious such behaviour can be.
Nevertheless, during my relatively short time on the board, I considered it my duty to gather information and make (what I believe were) sound decisions based on that information. I didn't have to like from where or from whom the data came. But it was my duty to listen to it, just as it was your to give everyone a voice.
Reasoned discourse? Not usually. It was usually the same old blah-blah again and again and again. Sometimes with hate. But occassionally someone would say something that maybe I hadn't considered before and those A-HA moments are why we listen.
Ooh. Anybody at the 1/9 meeting?
Kate Fratti was!
I will expand upon this tasty little tidbit tomorrow.
Post a Comment