Lebanon, Robinson, Investigation, etc. etc.

I was going to address this in comments, but I decided to write up one post both to simplify and because posts are more visible than comments.

First, I want to address the comment that Anonymous left on my post regarding the latest school board meeting. Frankly, I think the comment conflates several things that I want to try and unpack. Anonymous says:

There are many issues involve here that you had failed to identify. The purpose of this investigation is a witch hunt and based on rumors. If a governing board investigate all the rumors that swirls around faster than the speed of light then the function of that governing board is no more than a rumor control board.

I agree that an investigation as conceived by Rick and Josh "is a witch hunt and based on rumors." That seems pretty obvious. I think Shimmin is more genuinely concerned and less likely to see the removal of Robinson as a goal (which is clearly what Rick wants, as he's been throwing anything he can think of to the wall and checking for what sticks in an admirably single-minded fashion). I'm not arguing that point. But it seems to me that we can ignore the garbage being spewed by Rick and still find that there is something going on - it's not one or the other.

Second the board can be legally responsible for the heading of the investigation. An investigation is first put in place if there is an allegations of a criminal misconduct which none had occured. The dissatification between management and employee relationship does not raise it to the level where money are spend to investigate such issue. NOTE: Employees will never be happy with management especially if the union is involve.

This is just disingenuous, to suggest that nothing should be done in this case because "employees will never be happy with management especially if the union is involve." To me, I hear the commenter suggesting that the whole thing is just complaining on the part of teachers and staff. That kind of arrogant dismissal of what appears to be genuine hurt is a mistake. It serves as a refusal to legitimate the position of folks who are actually hurt and upset by this, and if there's one thing that folks working in a school district should know, it's that refusing to legitimate someone will cause them to shut down and/or become even more upset. I think a far better solution here is to take folks seriously and then prove there is no basis for their complaint. This requires actually doing some work in actually talking to folks and taking ideas seriously that you may not agree with, and I understand that it's far easier just to snipe at people and refuse to really listen, but doing so just breeds more anger and frustration, and that's what we're trying to avoid, remember? Telling folks to metaphorically "suck it up" because you think they're wrong is incredibly dumb.

Moving on to the rest of Anonymous' comment:

Third, the investigation can not be used for evaluating the superintendent. I suggest that YOU do your homework and read the contract first then the School Board policy before you wade into this muddy puddle. From the School Board policy and the Superintendent's contract. I suggest that RW should read board policy CBA and Superintendent's contract provision number 4.

I don't recall ever suggesting that this be used for an evaluation. Robinson is certainly right on that - there is an established process, and that's fine.

Fourth how will this investigation move the district forward? Debbie said this will be good for forming future goals for the board. How can you form goals for the future from investigating these issues? Running a school district is more complicated than writing an un-inform piece of article.

How will this move the district forward? I think I covered that in my original post: Lots of folks will not be happy without some resolution to their existing grievances. That's how.

Debbie, Rick and Josh have never read the board policies at least completely. The policies are there as laws to govern this school district. If they do not know the policies, how can they govern? Its like hand picking a bum off the street to become a judge to interpert the law. I can think of many examples to illustrate my point.

I have no doubt that Rick and Josh have not read the entirety of the board policies. Shimmin (whose first name is spelled Debi, by the way) will get there, I think, even if she hasn't yet. Furthermore, I don't think the positions taken by Rick and Josh on the relevant issues really have the best interest of the school district in mind, and I certainly think that Rick Alexander is simply unfit to be on the board; he's shown no ability in public to deliberate or work well (or at all) with other people, especially if they disagree with him.

I want to be clear on this, because it sounds like Anonymous is suggesting that I am defending Rick, and that's not the case. Thus far, it's never been the case, and I can't see a point in the future when it will be the case.

So if you want to know the truth why there is so much disfuntion on the board? There is your anwser. Lack of knowledge and vision.

Lack of knowledge - sure. Lack of vision? I don't think anyone on the board lacks vision. I just think that the members have varying visions that they've had real trouble articulating, partially because it can be a difficult thing to do and partially because the way they understand politics suggests that they think being honest about what you want means you're less likely to get it. (And in the case of Rick and his desire to get rid of Robinson, he's right, since he has no rational basis for the claim.) In other words, there is not enough trust between the board members that they can be honest with each other about their positions on board issues. This is a bad thing.

Moving on, Lebanon Truth did a short post as a response to mine, and it seems I was not as articulate as I needed to be. LT says:

LT thinks that Robinson would be comfortable with a reasonable independent investigation that is consistent with the terms of his contract. That means the investigation should be focused, limited, and unbiased.
RW needs to go back to a school board meeting, to see how Rick, Josh, and Debi are unable to articulate a clear plan for the investigation.

To be clear (and this may be slightly repetitive in regards to the earlier part of the post): I don't think any investigation or evaluation or much of any process whatsoever that involves Rick Alexander is going to be reasonable. I have seen no evidence that he's capable of conducting politics in an open and public manner. Plus, if his goal is really to get rid of Robinson, and he won't come out and say it, there's no way the current process will really get anywhere - he's just going to try and dance around the issue as long as possible, but it's long been obvious his rhetorical and political skills are nowhere near as good as they need to be for him to pull this off in public (besides that, I get the sense he hates the light). And as long as Josh is following Rick, Josh can't articulate what he wants either.

I guess I had assumed that it was obvious based on my previous comments that Rick is functionally incompetent when it comes to being a member of a deliberative body.

I should maybe phrase it this way, then: While I think that resolving some of the existing and long-standing grievances against Robinson is necessary for the district to begin the process of moving forward (whatever that entails), I don't think Rick or Josh are capable of or interested in working towards a resolution of those grievances. As long as they are driving the process, it will be inarticulate and dysfunctional.

It represents a real dilemma, however: If Rick and possibly Josh refuse to really participate in a meaningful way (to make a good faith effort, in other words), is it ethical to ignore them and move on without them? They are elected board members, after all. Sprenger seems to think it's not, and ultimately, I agree with her.