|
Re: Secondary School Options Committee Report
|
Tod Moses
|
Feb 29, 2004 12:30 PST
|
Dear Mr. de le Pena (and other concerned citizens),
These are (probably) my final thoughts on this matter.
A lot of people have put a lot of time into
investigating the matter, and I for one, have done my
time, and will likely consider myself out of the
matter from this point forward.
Let me say that my one and only disappointment with
this report is that it took entirely to long to get
into public hands. In my opinion, some of us became
overly concerned with form and grammar toward the end
and not concerned enough with being timely. It is
also worth noting that virtually every member of this
committee was already committed to at least one other
civic responsibility, as well as a job and family, and
was not always able to keep up with the deadlines
needed to do this in the time-line that we all so
desperately wanted to get it done in. We simply
wanted to be as complete and concise as possible.
That being said, everyone’s intentions were honorable
and above reproach. There were many times that I
simply felt out of my league serving with all of these
fine people, and I consider it an honor to have done
so.
There are a few things that I find disconcerting about
your criticism and analyses of the SSOC report. First
and foremost, is that while the SSOC meetings were
publicly announced, you were never at any of them to
give this input. Some of which might have proved
accurate and valuable to our research. Also since
almost all of the members of the SSOC participate in
this group (thereby making their email addresses
public knowledge) you never took the time to
communicate with us that way either. Second is the
fact that you chose to make an awful lot of assertions
based on what you yourself refer to as “very, very
preliminary research” and “general tentative,
incomplete and brief” comments.
I believe that you may be missing the point, even
though you refer to it in your post. My point was
essentially this; gaining additional representation
from the town on the TA board would have to be done by
what would appear to be a knockdown drag out fight
with the current TA board. They do not believe that
politicizing their board membership in this way is the
best way to assure the long term health and success of
TA and it’s students, and therefore have made it clear
that they will not go along with such attempts. I am
not at all sure that I agree with that assertion (in
fact I told them and will tell anyone publicly that I
found some of the board members attitudes about the
town and it’s people’s ability to govern to be more
than a little cynical), but the bottom line is that is
our reality.
Let’s assume for the moment that your “very, very
preliminary research” is accurate and that the town
could exercise eminent domain. You cannot honestly
tell me that you do not think that this would not end
up in along bitter dispute between the town and TA.
That would be very counterproductive to the education
of our children, and would likely end up in court at
great taxpayer expense. All this would at least for a
time add to the property tax burden to the town’s
citizens, because contrary to popular belief, when a
municipal government enters into litigation there are
legal fees that someone must pay for, win or loose.
That someone is the taxpayer.
Then there comes the question of just what all of this
“representation” gets us? Based on my time in
volunteer service, it has long been my assertion that
if you change the way any volunteer organization
appoints its people, you will still end up with most,
if not all of the same people. Because the truth is
that it is very hard to find people willing to serve
on such boards and committees, and more often than
not, the people serving (regardless of how they got
there) are the ones who were willing to serve. So all
of this wrangling, time and expense will be so that
the TA board will have at best, one or two different
individuals sitting on it.
The question is this: Even if you are right in
principal (and you may very well be) what is it worth
to you? I am afraid that is a question we may all
have to answer, and I for one pray that we will think
long and hard before we do.
One final note: I still firmly believe that the best
solution for the governance issue at TA is a
partnership agreement that has teeth when it comes to
finances, as well as general accountability. It is
true however, that TA would not have to except such an
agreement, but I am convinced that it has a much
better chance than asking them to turn over seats on
their board to the town. Such amendments to the
partnership agreement however, need to be accompanied
by a new attitude about TA on the part of the school
board. The current attitude at the school board seems
to be that they do their thing (running TES) and TA
does theirs. The relationship in my opinion needs to
more closely resemble that of a general contractor to
a subcontractor. Where the subcontractor is given all
the information that they need to complete the job and
left to do it, but checked on regularly by the GC and
held accountable when things are not done as per there
agreements. Currently there is very little oversight
in the school board/TA relationship. There were times
in my conversations with members of the school board
when it seemed to me that they felt powerless when it
came to TA and would just as soon keep it that way.
If that is the case then who is minding the candy
store? No one! I ask the school board to do its job
in managing it’s relationship with TA in a more hands
on way, or this debate will continue to rage on and on
and on. TA is a fine institution but everyone needs
an accountability structure to be at their best.
Kind Regards,
Tod Moses
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
|
|
 |
|
