Response to Democrat and Chronicle Article on Rochester Board of Education's Secrecy

The manner in which the so-called Democratic Caucus of the Rochester Board of Education has handled its responsibility of filling the board seat vacated by Darryl Porter is a disrespectful sham and assault on the intelligence of Rochester's tax-paying citizens and voters.

As it relates to filling the current Rochester Board of Education vacancy, in accordance with 'Secrecy: The city school board closes its appointment process' (D&C, January 22, 2006) __ apparently, at least one D&C editorialist would be satisfied with a half-baked, partial loaf __ as opposed to no bread at all. That is to say, although the above referenced article calls for "bringing the selection process into the open" __ apparently the writer is willing to accept the thoroughly bogus process that board members utilized to eliminate 11 or 12 other candidates.

With regard to this critical issue, people should be aware and/or remember that it was reported by the D&C's education reporter on January 20, 2006 that, according to Commissioner Tom Brennan __ "there was an effort to make a decision without interviewing, and without even extensive discussion." It was also reported that Mr. Brennan "disagrees with a decision to interview only [so-called] finalists."

If it is true that "this should be considered a surrogate election process [and] the standards of openness and public involvement in elections should be applied," and if information contained in a letter sent to non-finalists (signed by Domingo Garcia __ not as Board President, but as "Chair, Democratic Caucus") is accurate __ then not only should we be discussing "bringing the two finalists before the public in an open forum or two to answer questions and articulate their views." Instead, the discussion should be about bringing, according to Garcia's letter, all of the "many qualified individuals" (whom exerted the time and energy to apply) before the public. This would be the only way of adequately meeting the above referenced "standards of openness and public involvement." It also would represent the only manner of satisfying the need that Mr. Brennan has pointed out for the board "to treat all of the candidates with more dignity and respect than we have."

All of us who are politically aware and astute know that the bottom line is the "secrecy" is designed to prevent the general public from understanding that this decision has little or nothing to do with who is or is not best qualified to serve in the position, but is really a purely political decision, and therefore neglectful of the objective best interests of RCSD students and parents __ period.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060122/...

A LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER BRENNAN TO COMMISSIONER GARCIA:

TO: Rochester School Board President Domingo Garcia

FROM: Commissioner Tom Brennan

For almost a month now, we have known we would be filling a vacancy on our
board. Over that period, you and the rest of this board know that I have sought
timely information as to the process we would follow, and advocated a fair and
thorough process. You also know that I have done so with courtesy and
discretion. In light of bad faith and discourtesy, most vividly displayed in caucus
thursday night, and the legitimate public and media inquiry and criticism we
now face, some blunt truths are in order.

This implies no criticism of Mr. Henley and Ms. Jones, the only two of eleven
qualified applicants a majority of this board was even willing to talk to. I
admire both of them. This is a challenge to a process that ill serves them
and the public, and which undermines the too little appreciated efforts of the
people who work for us.

You will recall that in my e-mail of December 29th, I urged an application
and interview process that treated offers to serve with equal dignity and
appreciation. I pointed out how I had seen such a process conclude quickly and
amicably, and provide information important to a good decision, in prior school
board service. I did not point out (but do so now) that this board has
displayed a genius, in recent years, for turning this process into an embarassment.

I warned that the absence of a fair and thorough process would leave this
decision to a patchwork of private conversations, between some board members,
which would lend themselves to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. That is
what happened. Three times now, I have had to correct people because other
board members have awarded my support to applicants, despite the fact that I
have stated my decision to keep an open mind in writing. Indeed you tried to
tell me, in your e-mail of December 29th, that there was no need for a process
because a particular candidate had four votes committed --- including my own!

Thursday was our first chance to address this process as a board. When I
questioned the process we were following you tried to shout down discussion.
While the board, technically meeting as the Democratic caucus, was allowed to meet
in secret, it was nor required we do so, and nobody asked me if that was OK.

What resulted was two quick round robins, where all but two of the applicants
(including some very impressive people) were eliminated without any
meaningful inquiry. This is insulting to them, and to the public. It is nonsense to
say that this board did not have the time to do this right. The public pays
us to make these decisions. This decision was the functional equivalent of an
election. The public has the right expect due diligence. For no reasons other
than laziness, arrogance and cronyism --- this was not demonstrated.

This entire episode is a sobering lesson in how this board should not do
business.
It is imperative that the board and/or the caucus establish a process to see
that this situation is not repeated.

For more information call 254-8953