Opinion Forum
This page exists to allow Cordovans to express/exchange views
on the recent School Board actions regarding the 10/2009 suspension of
the Alcohol policy in the Student Handbook. Names are included if
requested by the author.
To submit comments, email us at SBforum@cordovaradio.com
Or, if you cannot email, or do not wish to email, you are welcome to
call 3796, fax 3737, mail to box 60, or drop something by the station,
and I will gladly transcribe your comments.
(This page is not authorized, controlled, or (necessarily) endorsed by
the Cordova School District -- it is an independent, listener requested
forum)
#1 -- school staff member -- added 11/18, 11:07am
"JR- this sounds familiar, I wonder what ever happened in this
case, was it changed?"
LINK TO PDF OF
REFERENCED ARTICLE
#2 -- J.R. Lewis -- added 11/18, 11:46am
Hey all -- thanks for the idea for this forum, and I hope it gives
people a chance to have their say. I'll contribute my that letter
I wrote for the 11/16 meeting (with the note that none of the questions
were even close to answered by anybody).
11/10, 11:25am
To: CDV School Board
Fm: J.R.Lewis
Re: Correspondence for 11/16/09
meeting
Greetings.
I plan to ask these in person, but
just so I’m sure it’s on the record, I am also writing the questions
prior to the 5 day deadline with the hope that this note will be
included in correspondence.
I would like to have the members of
the board address the following:
(1) Why was it necessary to make that
change in the alcohol policy on the night you did, without giving it
just a little more time for balanced testimony and public notice, given
the high potential for this to appear to be a reactionary decision as a
result of the context (i.e. a policy violation on the very policy being
changed)?
(2) Looking back, and considering the
fallout since, do you stand by the decision to make the call that
night, or do you now believe that waiting a bit and allowing more
balanced input would have been a better choice?
(3) Related closely to (2), if faced
with a similar situation in the future, do you expect you would handle
the issue the same way that this was handled, or would you likely take
a more deliberate approach?
Thank you, in advance, for your
clarification on these points at the 11/16 meeting, perhaps during
board comments if not before.
#3 -- school staff member (same
as #1) -- added 11/18, 12:17pm
Jr- here's an article by a Dr. Keith Conner- maybe we could get him to
chat since he is a DR. It shows how a violaters actions really play out
in a coaches life.
LINK TO PDF OF
REFERENCED ARTICLE
#4 -- school staff member (same
as #1) -- added 11/18, 12:33pm
Article relating to South Plainfield GREAT!!!!!!!!!!! (follow up to
link in #1)
LINK TO PDF OF
REFERENCED ARTICLE
#5 -- parent -- added 11/18,
9:21pm
"Still having a son in HS, is very hard now. Luckily, he too is angry
at the back peddling of the board. He works hard to stay in shape and
on the team and then sees others willfully break the rules and go
against the contracts they have signed two years in a row. We were all
told at the viewing of the AASA video that the CHS rules were much more
strict than the AASA rules. So we all, students and parents, understood
exactly what we signed. I'm having a hard time accepting that only the
parents and kids who didn't 'understand' the rules are the ones who got
caught."
#6 -- teacher -- added 11/18,
9:26pm
The Board has opened Pandora's box! If policy can be changed at
one board meeting because 4 vocal parents argue the consequences their
children received are too harsh, every policy we have (from attendance
rules to graduation requirements) are open to arbitrary
interpretation. The purpose of policy (and the strict one we
adopted) is to remove the arbitrary element. The staff are
incensed and outraged. Many of us feel betrayed, we can’t trust the
Board to back us up. A couple are considering not taking coaching
positions in the future.
The Board also acted without input from the silent majority — staff,
students and parents who do follow school policy. And what about
the legality of their going into Executive session to discuss this when
it had nothing to do with finances or personnel. Then, to take
and action/change policy without due process. Changes to the
policy manual often go through 2 – 3 public readings.
Parents argue our athletic code is more stringent than ASSA’s
rules. True. So are our attendance, citizenship and
graduation requirements more stringent that the state’s. What is to
stop another vocal group to say that such-and-such a teacher’s class is
too hard, harder than schools in Anchorage and my child should be
allowed to graduate even if he/she has not met the established
criteria. We pride ourselves in the level of excellence we strive
for as a school district. We have lowered the bar here.
Students and parents signed athletic codes; the rules were clear.
Their claim was they were unaware of the harsh consequences. It
is really disappointing that adults do not read the contracts they
sign. Nor do they hold their children to the contracts they sign and
agree to. What are we teaching here? Your signature, your
word, your honor mean nothing when you make a mistake? (Or
because you are a star volleyball player/wrestler?)
The athletes involved planned a party, met at the trailhead, walked 3
miles into the Mckinley Lake cabin carrying the alcohol. This was
a premeditated event, not a case of “at the wrong place at the wrong
time” incident. They can organize themselves to violate a code,
but not be held accountable when they do so.
I could go on. .... Bottom line - I think the real issue is Cordova
good ol’ boys-influential families-star athletes-we are not accountable
like everyone else politics. I’d suggest listening to recording
of the meeting. Some interesting and convoluted reasoning on the
part of those who spoke.
#7 -- CHS student -- added 11/18,
9:30pm
In My opinion, I think that the original action should have been
kept. The whole point of some of those kids going to the meeting
was to do just what they did. Now, granted there was a fault in
the school system and I am not a volleyball player, but what I think is
that the schools should not go back on what they originally said which
was that they were off the team. I feel really bad for the
coaches. It's just sad that he has to be left up to this
decision.
#8 -- staff member -- added
11/18, 9:32pm
The meeting agenda was misleading. Had more people
known what was going to be discussed took place, we would have
seen
more of the opposing view, than just the ramblings of blinded
parents.
#9 -- parent -- added 11/18,
9:35pm
I am having a hard time with this issue. It is difficult being in
such a
close community, to put out opinions that are most likely adverse to the
majority. Or at least the majority of the ones that were at the
meeting to
speak up. I feel that we not informed that there was a
possibility that
changes would be made immediately and that we should voice our opinion.
But the important issue is that if we change this policy and make it
more
lenient there will be more kids willing to "take the risk" of getting
caught. The current policy of 45 school days sends the message
that you
will not be on the team if you are caught-so if you really want to
participate, behave!! Maybe it is too strict and some changes can
be made,
I am willing to do that. However, changing a policy after some
kids have
been kicked of the teams is not right. Now other kids can think
that they
can do it too. I really like all of those girls and hated to see
them so
upset. But this is how we all learn. They are old enough to
know what they
were doing was wrong and what the consequences would be if they were
caught.
Now we have just made excuses for them.
#10 -- citizen -- added 11/18,
9:38pm
This alcohol policy has been a very controversial in the community and
within the school board itself. I think they are struggling to on how
to deal with the issue now that it is in the limelight. I know there
has been some discussion even a few years ago when the policy was
adopted as to why Cordova was going beyond most other schools in the
state, but nothing was actually put on the table for the board to take
action on. Now, there are new board members since that time and
were faced head on with the issue and were not prepared for it. The
quandary in my mind is this. The fairness is to the girls on the
volleyball that did not participate in the drinking. They had a chance
to take a state title and the immature actions of a few good players
has damaged these other girls dreams. Tough position to be in no doubt.
The girls that were involved lost all of my respect because they knew
the ramifications and did it anyway. Kids do stupid things sometimes
and they need to learn life lessons. How do we as a community deal with
the issue that penalizes innocent kids for the actions of a few knowing
that the few are getting off easy. Maybe the parents and students
involved need to come up with some alternative punishment in this case
- community service, no opportunity to be involved in Ice worm, etc. I
don't know the answer.
#11 -- citizen -- added 11/18,
9:40pm
My personal take on this is that a few parents with extra pull in the
community got their kids off the hook, even tho they knew they clearly
violated the existing code - by using the ASAA guidelines as a
cop-out. Give me a break, these kids and their parents have been
signing this code for years, and as far as I know, ignorance of the law
is not an excuse. Some even lied and covered up for their
kids. Plus these kids are no dumbies, and knew the
code. Shame on them and their parents for causing this
mess. Serve the 45 days, which would almost already be up, admit
you screwed up, and go on from there. It's embarrassing
that last year a jr hi boys ballplayer, who happened to be a Filipino,
was kicked off the team with no problems, but this year, its some of
the stars, so now we throw out the code. If I was a parent of one of
these kids, I would have made him serve the 45 days, regardless of what
the board did. Instead we just taught them that rules really
don't count - if you're special.
#12 -- citizen -- added 11/18,
9:41pm
My biggest peeve is with the board and administration. What were
they thinking? Why didn't they stand up to these parents? I
honestly think they violated their own policy manual which requires
public hearings, first and second readings, and careful thought before
adopting new policy - and is not completely eliminating a long standing
policy the most drastic, egregious policy change possible? I
suspect if someone wanted to challenge them legally, it could get very
interesting.
And what about the kids that DO follow the code? Is this fair to
them? They get to fill in and play for a week, until the party
crowd comes back and knocks them off the team. So much for
discipline, sacrifice, responsibility, and team work.
#13 -- citizen -- added 11/18,
9:44pm
I have talked with several of the coaches and advisors, and will tell
you point blank that staff morale regarding this is at an all time
low. This is about the worst message possible to send to a group
of youngsters - if you don't like the rules, and are special, we will
change them for you. What kind of principles does that
reflect? I have also gotten vibes from folks in
the community that they just have lost a lot of respect for the school
as a result of this, and won't support it with the same degree of
enthusiasm as in the past. I am not naive enough to think
that kids haven't broken the rules every year, but when caught, they
paid the price (including some in my own family, who bless them
were honest and took their punishment)
I also know more than one person who has said he would not serve on a
committee to make up new rules, since how does one know another board
won't act as this one did and succumb to pressure at crunch enforcement
time.
And I am livid that a parent threatened to take his son to Valdez to
wrestle and play basketball unless the board changed the policy; and
this same parent and his son were were cheerfully travelling on the
ferry for a wrestling trip, less than two weeks after violating the
Code.
#14 -- former staff member --
added 11/18, 9:47pm
It is interesting that no one had a real issue with the policy, until
some key kids got caught or admitted breaking it. If it needs
changing, fine - but do it the right way.
What happened here violates all the precepts at the very core of what
activities are intended to teach.
Thanks for taking a stand!
#15 -- citizen/parent -- added
11/18, 9:49pm
Hey JR, good job on keeping at this one. I get the same feeling
of a run around the block as you do. They must all be looking at
higher Political careers in the 2012 elections. Anyway keep up
the pursuit, we are listening!
#16 -- J.R. Lewis -- added 11/18,
9:49pm
Hey all, thanks for your patience as I get these in as fast as I
can. Had a busy day with play rehearsal, and prep for the next
one. But I will continue to update this as often as time
allows. Great to see so many using the forum!!!
And too, I'm hoping to add a link to the letters that were submitted at
one of the first post-vote meetings. I just gotta find 'em in my
enormous piles of stuff :p
#17 -- parent -- added 11/18,
9:59pm
I can understand why people are upset on how the board acted, but I
also understand why they acted so quickly. First, from my
understanding, the code was not explained as it was the year before
since Donald was new and not at the volleyball meeting. Second, I had
no idea what the code was and was shocked at the level of harshness. I
feel that they are the officals that we elected to make policy
decisions and not everyone will agree all of the time on the decisions
that the board makes, but they are doing the job we entrusted them
with. All laws, state, federal and local are subject to change over
time. Kinks must be worked out. After thinking about it long and hard,
I feel that ASAA's rules should be installed and followed as our code.
The state worked hard on these rules, and they seem to be working. With
ASAA's rules there is no emotion, no opinon, just rules that cannot be
challenged and cannot be overturned. I feel that they are fair, allow
for second chance and more importantly do not strip a child that has
made a bad decision and participated in high risk behavior of all they
are involved in. I think anyone can see that a student that has nothing
to do will be put into a position of possibly participating in even
more risky behavior. So I have to say the board, in my opinion,
acted in a way that was appropriate, we elected them to make decisions
and they did.
#18 -- citizen -- added 11/19,
11:36am
I think it's pretty obvious what happened. The board got swept up in a
wave of emotional testimony and made a rash decision without thinking
it through. Classic case of not being able to see the forest for
the trees in the heat of the moment. The thing i don't get is,
why don't they just admit it? Why put their tails between their
legs and try to pretend it's anything else?
#19 -- J.R. Lewis -- added 11/19,
11:53am
In response to an email I got this morning, and as a follow up to my
entry at #2 where I posted the 3 questions I had asked each of the
board members if they would address in their end-of-meeting comments,
I've got the transcription of the "answer" from the chair, after each
of the other board members had made their comments (none of which
acknowledged my questions at all). This is what came at the end:
Chair: It’s not for lack of wanting
to engage as far as answering the questions that have been posed.
A lot of people have put a lot of work into this. Into the public
process of this. But, the board has a process to follow.
And I feel that what was contained in this message from Mr. Nygaard,
answered some of those questions, and now we’re going through that
process. And when the item’s on the agenda, that’s when the board
speaks to it. So, as we’ve seen, there’s a diverse range of
values and expectations with respect to school disciplinary
policies. And it’s the board’s job to find that middle
ground. And, we have to respect all those diversified
opinions. So, I appreciate everybody's work on that. And
we’ll just continue with the process, and hopefully narrow it down to
where the board... what we’ll eventually do. Hope that helped J.R.
J.R.: I’ll have to listen back to it
I guess... I’m not 100% sure.
Chair: It’s difficult, you know, when
you pose these questions because each board member has a different
answer to those questions, and, you know, I don’t.. I can't speak for
the
board in that respect. This was, you know, what we published.
J.R.: But you told me I couldn’t get
the answers from the individual board members because that was
inappropriate.
Chair: I told you it would... it...
there’s a process to be followed. I sent you the bylaws,
OK? So, we also have a process that has to be followed. We
have discovered inconsistencies in the policies, and I believe that
there’s additional inconsistencies that have surfaced since we made
this (word unintelligible). So, we will continue on the process,
and it’ll hopefully be on our December agenda if the steering committee
um... gets to that point... with it. And yeah, thanks
everybody. I know you’ve put a lot of your own personal
time into this. We appreciate that.
As an aside, I would point out that I followed the process in the
bylaws to the letter, and still got nowhere (other than that to be
told, again, that I need to "follow the process"). The
administration said (verbally) that it can't speak for the board --
that only the board can do that. And the board counters that it
can only speak through the administration, which had just told me it
can't speak for them. Ummmm... OK. Here's a PDF of the
bylaw page the chair sent me if you want a look.
I also never asked the chair to speak for the board, but had asked each
individual board member if they had any clarity on this. And the
message
from Mr. Nygaard, referenced by the chair, did not (in my recollection)
address any of the questions I was asking regarding the speed of the
decision, nor reflection upon it, nor whether a decision might be made
in this manner again.
So in this reporter's opinion (and in the unanimous opinion of everyone
at the meeting who spoke to me afterwards), I got completely
dodged. BUT, if anyone sees/believes/heard something to the
contrary, PLEASE TELL ME -- because honest to God, enlightenment is all
I'm after here. Does the board consider this whole thing to have
been a proper way to do business, and will they do it like this again
the next time something like this comes up? OR, do they think
they'd handle it differently given the community reaction since.
There's no right or wrong answer -- just tell us. But don't say
nothing, because that has serious implications for how business gets
conducted in the future -- and the public has a right to know what to
expect. Can anything in the handbook be set aside at any time
with virtually no warning or justification, or
will the process be more deliberate in the future? I wish SOMEONE
would just TELL US!
#20 -- parent of CHS student --
added 11/19, 7:21pm
I really don’t believe the school board had any ulterior motive to get
the student athletes back on the teams sooner. I also believe
that they DID have plans to change the “Code of Conduct” in some
way. By stating on the agenda “Information/Action” the board left
themselves an opening for a vote based on public comment and letters
they had received to that point. Unfortunately, many community
members did not know that there was an issue that would be so highly
one sided at that particular meeting. Had community members been
aware that the Board would do a flip-flop, I believe more people for
the other camp would have made their statements known.
Because this has not been a regular occurrence with this board, (to
change policy and retroactive it), no one really expected them to do so
and thus it has stirred up a lot of resentment and a lack of confidence
in this board.
I think, JR that you will not hear a board member give you the answers
you seek because of confidentiality in their Executive Session.
Only the board knows what was said and why and they really can’t and
shouldn’t repeat it. As far as repeating their actions in another
issue, I hope they’ve learned a lesson.
Did they do the right thing? No. Should they reverse it
again? Absolutely not! Should they listen to all sides now
and come up with a policy that is fair and that will keep students from
committing these violations in the first place? Yes.
Let’s move forward toward a good result and REALLY have our say in the
March elections.
#21 -- citizen -- added 11/19,
7:23pm
JR, I was at the meeting, and, yes, you were put off. The present
school bd is following two different sets of standards: They made a
quick change in the "Rules" in October and didn't follow their own
policy by "listening only" at the meeting, yet on 11/16 they listened
only to what we presented and didn't make a hasty decision. It is truly
confounding and is showing true stupidity!!! It's called situation
ethics--change the rules to fit the situation... I feel if it was any
other child/children involved in the violation, the old rules would
have stood. I still feel like the old rule/student activity code should
have been in place UNTIL the new one was formulated and approved by the
school board. That's how laws usually work. What happened here???
#22 -- citizen -- added 11/19,
7:25pm
Maybe the question should have been; "What were some of the
discrepancies in the former policy that would cause the board to vote
to change the policy?" Sometimes I don't ask the right questions. When
you ask about what was the feeling in an executive meeting that caused
the change, they'll bristle and clam up. They are not supposed to talk
about those efforts in open forum or they are just not sure what is
appropriate to say and what is not.
Valerie was right to remind the group that there would be no
interchange between visitors and the board. There usually isn't. But I
was really expecting more board members to respond to your questions
during their comment time.
#23 -- teacher -- added 11/19,
7:27pm
Yeah I was shocked (at the meeting on the 16th). At first I thought
they weren't even going to comment but ignore you altogether. Then when
Valerie actually commented about it, I was disappointed to say the
least. I don't know what the previous conversations between you two
were, but it sure sounds like they are evading the issue. I wonder why?
#24 -- school employee -- added
11/20, 6:43pm
Regarding #17's comment
1. The offending athletes who violated code were NOT first year
athletes. They AND their parents watched the ASAA video and signed the
same contract the year before. Nothing new there.
2. Drinking alcohol is against the law. Nothing new here either.
3. They are students and therefore are educated, so they can read the
policy handbook.
4. Ignorance of a law or policy is no excuse to break the rules and
AFTER the fact complain about it. They made a poor choice here!
5. They have already participated in "risky behavior", drinking
alcohol. What makes one think that they won't do it again anyway. Like
Jim Nygguard the superintendent stated he spoke to one of the students
who said they really didn't care what the punishment was, they just
wouldn't tell NEXT time. Now that attitude is an attention
getter...this obviously says who cares what anyone else says- parents,
school or law, team.
6. Did they (school board) "act appropriate" seems to me only the
violators were considered. What about the "entire" school...coaches,
teachers, parents of kids that chose to uphold the policy, other
students...the list goes on and on. Pandora's box is open.
Check out one of the newer links on this sight...drinking at prom,
parents of violaters complained, school board caved, students walked at
graduation...mmm What's next for Cordova?
Pity!
#25 -- citizen -- added 11/25,
8:22pm
It is unfortunate for all involved that the school board will not
address the issue of why they felt they had to make that decision when
they did. And even more unfortunate that a few parents thought
that they had the right to push the board into making a reversal that
affects all students and their families-without consulting the other
approximately 200 families! Several of these students involved
have parents who grew up in Cordova and have known that our high school
has such a stict policy. If you thought it needed to be changed,
do it at a time when the policy has not just been broken.
Our children look to us for guidance as they grow up. They need
us to set limits and inforce consequences when those limits are
violated. The school's strict policy serves as positive peer
pressure and back up for family policies and values. Yes, kids
make mistakes-so do adults. Several of these kids will be going
off on their own in a few months. What happens when they break a
law? Or sign a lease contract and then break it? What have
we just taught not only these students, but all of the students?
I have heard the argument that if these students could not participate
in their sport or activity than of course they will just go out
partying and causing more problems. What about the students who
do not participate in sports and/or other activities? Are they
all trouble makers? Children strive to attain goals that their
parents/guardians set for them. Set tough goals, and guide them
through. Don't make it easy for them to make mistakes. What
if someone had been seriously hurt or even killed as a result of that
one party? It happens. It has happened in Cordova.
Let's do all we can to see that it doesn't happen again.
Isn't it amazing the amount of stress and grief and this change of
policy has caused? I appreciate those who are willing to stick
with the fight to ensure that we get the best policy for all of our
students/families/community. Let's send the right message.
#26 -- citizen -- added 11/25,
8:38pm
J.R.
My two questions:
(1) If these people will just toss out anything in the handbook at any
time, then why the hell have a handbook? What's the point?
it's a joke.
(2) Not that we'll ever get an answer, since we never seem to get any
answers out of that bunch, but exactly what lesson do they think they
are teaching the kids with this crap? If they ever had the
courage to say "students, here's what we want you to learn from
this...", what would it be? I agree with (name removed) -- this
is the absolute worst decision a Cordova School board has made in
the last 30 years.
#27 -- parent -- added 12/4,
9:46am
Thanks for putting up the minutes. After reading them, it's
pretty obvious to me what happened. They felt the heat and
caved. Because 4 families (two of them with kids who violated the
policy) complained, the board freaked and disregarded the dozens of
families represented in the making of the previous policy in the
handbook. The work of dozens over months undone by the actions of
a handful in one night. Makes no sense. And
didn't Val say that the boards job was to find middle
ground? How is placing the wishes of a tiny handful of families
over the wishes of the dozens and dozens that helped craft that policy
a representation of "middle ground"? Seems a bit like putting an
elephant on one side of a teeter totter and a mouse on the other, and
saying "well, looks balanced to me".
#28 -- parent (same as #27) --
added 12/4, 9:50am
And something else I don't get. If Pete felt the way he appeared
to in his comments, then why did he vote as he did? He sounds
like one of us who think ths action was completely nuts. If he
had voted the way him comments read, the motion would have
failed. I agree with your #19 post, J.R. -- why don't these
people explain themselves? It'd be a lot easier to
understand.
#29 -- citizen -- added 12/4,
9:54am
Am I right that all of the kids who violated this policy had heard Doug
give the speech about how Cordova is stricter last year? Because
if that's true, then this whole "confusion" thing is total nonsense.
#30 -- citizen (same as #29) --
added 12/4, 9:56am
Oh, and I'd like to hear Gilman explain why they supposedly
gave a false alibi for their son. Did they actually lie and say
he
wasn't at this party? And if that's true, why didn't he resign
from the board?
#31 -- J.R. Lewis -- added 12/4,
1015am
Hey folks! Thanks for hanging in there, and sorry (again) that
it's taken me a while to get this last batch of comments up. Been
a busy week. I'll continue to try to keep up as best I can, and
thanks for your patience :D
#32 -- parent -- added 12/9,
9:15pm
I agree with #30. What's he still doing on the board?
#33 -- staff member letter to
school board -- added 12/9, 11:17pm
I just wanted to put in a suggestion' I do agree that the students
should not be removed from the team. But I do not agree that they
should return to the position they once had. The position should change
from player to trainer for the individual(s)' They should be
responsible to help another Lam mate replace the position they have
caused to be in turmoil from the choices they have made. As a trainer
they are required to go to all practices and help out at home games,
loosing the travel privileges, but not loosing the chance at the next
sports activity and still being a part of the team. If they are low on
the roster then they should become an at home manager. Also I think the
board needs to set in place procedures to deal with such an issue for
future incidences. you moved way to quick to dismiss a policy that took
months to implement and you have not onry got parents up in arms you
have done these students a great disservice, by taking away their
.or,r"qrr"rr""s. you have made them privileged in the eyes of their
peers for their wrong actions, you have minimized the punishment for a
serious offense. If you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, they
listen some wha! but when they do touch and get burned they have now
learned the lesson the hard way but wont be so apt to touch it again.
you have taken away the bum for these students, so they have only
learned that their parents wiil step in and take the burn for them. so
have they really learned anything, or have they learned something that
wiir be more detriment to their future. These kids are in High school,
the sports they are doing will end with high school for the majority of
them. what you have shown them will go beyond high school. You have
imprinted in their lives that if you are good enough than exceptions
will be made no matter what rules you break. Being kicked off a team
sport in high school to make them rearize there are consequences to
your actions is minimal - verses the woman in Anchorage that just
killed someone because her consequence were not severe enough for the
first 4 previous actions, so what finally got her attentiory the death
of an innocent man and his family's way of life. Having something that
means a lot to a student but is not life altering is a minimal price to
pay for a life lesson. Thank you for vour time.
#34 -- parent (same as #32) --
added 12/9, 11:19pm
And is anyone surpsired that this board didn't hold those kids to the
consequences? After all, they won't face their own music.
Have any of them even acted like they even know or care that they
pissed off so many people? They don't take any responsibility for
themselves, so why should we expect them to make those kids take
responsibility?
#35 -- J.R. Lewis -- added 12/14,
10:35pm
Well, I was worried that I'd leave with no answers again, but much to
my relief, the board took me up on my questions and provided some
clarity on the October decision. I'll try to paraphrase my
impressions below, but the best clarity for all will come from the
audio of the meeting which I will post once I have it processed.
I encourage you to listen if you couldn't be there tonight.
Gilman (who was unable to vote then, but still spoke to the issue) --
clearly felt that having the ASAA policy and the CHS policy in the same
book was too big an error to overlook in the handbook, and it needed to
be dealt with.
Sherman -- sure wishes all the info that was available now had been
available back then.
Ranney -- Understands the frustration, was hesitant to speak out as a
new board member.
Covel -- believes in the decision, and would do it exactly the same way
if the situation presented itself again.
Hoepfner (sp?) -- did not address.
I tip my hat to all those who spoke out. It is my belief
that the willingness to do so goes a long way toward dispelling the
shock that has remained since the original decision was made. I
know it does for me. And in my opinion, regardless of whether one
agrees with the sentiments presented, we have to give praise to those
who were willing to take a stand for their position, and not leave it
up to supposition. I have always believed that a public official
must acknowledge the public's need to understand what's happening when
public policy decisions are made, which is why I didn't give up on
this. The freedom of the press has been bastardized into this
nonsense about the public's right to know about Michael Jackson's
habits or Tom Cruise's affairs or Britney Spears' haircut. That's
utterly ridiculous. The reason the press was given its freedom
was so that there would always be an independent check on the the
actions of government. And when the government won't speak, the
the press must "press". THAT'S what the public's right to know is
all about, and that's why it's a Constitutional guarantee.
I encourage those of you still interested in this issue to listen to
the audio I will have posted here soon (I hope), and if you wish to use
this forum to speak your mind, then please do so. It will remain
until the matter is resolved.
Again, my sincere thanks to those on the board who answered the
public's call for
clarity. People will say what they like about the answers --
that's democracy. But again, whether you agree or not, I
really think you have to acknowledge that most of them DID at last say
SOMETHING. And for me, that raises the stock price.
#36 -- parent --
added 12/15, 1:19pm
Anyone who attended meetings on this issue over the last few months
would know that the administration stated unequivocally that the two
policies as written were not compatible with each other.
Hard to believe some still do not understand that. Maybe they choose to
remain ignorant of "Play for Keeps" ?
#37 -- parent --
added 12/15, 1:50pm
I've been following this for some time, and wonder why most people seem
to be missing the larger issue. Maybe it's one of those big
elephant
in the room things that no one wants to deal with, but the real problem
here is in parenting. A number of the parents of kids who got
caught
said at a meeting that kids will be kids, and will make bad
choices.
Well, if that's the case, then why did those same parents allow their
kid
to participate in a party that had the highest chance of exactly that
kind of mistake being made? A teen only party way out in the
woods
with no adult supervision? If you know for certain that teens
will
make mistakes like drinking, then why allow them in the worst possible
situation for that very thing to happen? And then to have had one
of
these parents come and collect their own kid while leaving the others
out there with the booze? And then to have yet another one of
those
parents lie and cover up for their kid and say the kis wasn't
there? And these are the parents that
the school board listened to when it came time make a retroactive
policy change that dishonors everyone that respects and follows the
rules?
Frankly, I think it's these parents that owe the town an explaination
as much or more so than the school board, since it was the bad choices
of the parents (way more than the kids) that caused all of this.
#38 -- citizen (same as #26) --
added 12/15, 2:26pm
Oh come on 36! They were perfectly compatible if you had read the
part in the ASAA book that states clearly that local districts can have
stricter policies. It's right there in back and white. If
you know anything about rules and laws, then you know that cities have
laws that can trump state laws, and state laws can trump federal
laws. This happens all the time. It's you that's choosing
to remain ingonrant of the fact that this reailty is
right there in print. Maybe not in big bold neon crayon letters
like some seem to need, but it's there.
And enough already on this nonsense about Donald "not explaining" the
differences. Doug explained it clearly last year, and nothing
changed between last year and this year. All the kids who
violated the policy heard Doug explain it in 2008. They were all
repeat athletes. They know nothing changed. Truth be told,
I don't even think it was the kids who cried confusion. I bet
everyone of them knew exactly what was at stake,
but never thought they'd get caught. This confusion B.S. was
coughed up by the parents to cover their own embarassment, because I'll
be none of them even read the stuff before signing it. And then
when they got blindsided by the amount of punishment their kid would
get because of their own parental failure, then
they ran for the first loophole they could find.
#39 -- citizen (same as #26) --
added 12/15, 2:28pm
By the way I just read 37 and loved it. And I'd like to add
(speaking of issues not being addressed) that I'd like to know who gave these
kids the booze. Someone's buns need to fry for that one.
#40 -- parent (same as #25) --
added 12/15, 2:33pm
Responding to 36:
Part 3 of Play for Keeps states that the ASAA consequences are a
minimum and that schools may set their own additional
consequences. What do you mean by compatible?
#41 -- Donald Kurz, Activities
Director -- added 12/15, 6:18pm
A lot has been made of the confusion or conflicting policies argument.
This is completely not the case. Most folks are pointing to the PLAY
FOR KEEPS video or policy provided by ASAA as the culprit. The fact is
we as a member school are required to abide by these minimum
guidelines. ASAA gives us the right to go above and beyond the ASAA
policies. At the team meeting this year, I made it abundantly clear
that our sports handbook is our standard. We showed the PFK video and
then I explained that the handbook is our "bible'". Each parent and
child then signed the code form at the back of the book acknowledging
their full understanding of the contents there in. There are several
districts like us, that have decided to go above and beyond the ASAA
minimums, and I stress the word minimums. This policy was voted on and
passed by this same board. What has changed? That's the question that
needs answering.
#42 -- parent (same as #36) --
added 12/15, 6:20pm
So the statement by an educated administration is to be ignored ?
Nice try, keep reading.
#43 -- citizen (same as #39) --
added 12/15, 7:02pm
To 42 -- no, of course you don't ignore Jim's statements. And
yes, he's educated in these issues. But so are a lot of other
people in Cordova. Teachers, former admin people, city council
members, business people, take your pick. Jim's voice, while
certainly weighty, is one voice and one opinion. And the chorus
of voices saying there is no conflict, for the very
reason I mentioned before, has been much stronger, including the vast
majority of the educated and dedicated people who took the time to
craft the handbook policy in the first place. Listen to Jim's
voice, sure. But his word is not law -- and it doesn't invalidate
all the other voices. To say that Jim's opinion is the only
one that counts would be as nonsensical as saying we should always do
what the Mayor says without question, or the Governor, or any public
leader. I seriously doubt that Jim wants to be thought of as Der
Furer.
If you had the ASAA policy and the CHS policy in the handbook,
with no
statement about CHS policy trumping ASAA, then this point about
"conflict" is valid. However, the ASAA policy does
have a clear statement that local rules superscede ASAA rules (as
stated by 40 above). It's right there for all to read on page 16
of the CHS book (which was passed by this same school
board -- did they read it before passing
it?), and also on page 54 of the ASAA stand-alone book: quote
"These are minimum penalties
which may be increased by the member school or member school district."
What's "confusing" about that? It's right there -- CHS can have
more restrictive policies if it wants; and if there's any perceived
"confusion", then CHS policy outranks. End of story.
So with all due respect, maybe it's you that needs to "keep
reading"?
#44 -- J.R. Lewis -- added 12/20,
3:14pm
Hey everyone -- J.R. here with an update (which ended up being much
longer than I anticipated, so forgive the potential verbosity).
I've had the good fortune to be able to speak to Jim Nygaard and some
of our school board members since the last meeting, and am now
beginning to (I think) get my head around some of the elements that led
up to this issue being as challenging for the community as it's
been. As always, it's my hope that by understanding as much as we
can about all sides, that it becomes increasingly possible to deal with
these tough issues with a more balanced mindset. Let me be clear:
I am NOT advocating for any "side" here. I am merely trying to
throw things on the table for thought. That said:
(1) One thing those of us in the public need to realize is that
"handbook" issues are different from other "policy" issues that the
school board faces. If they are changing something in the SB
policy manual, then it's one of those deals with multiple readings,
public hearings and so on. But the handbook is not
"policy". "Policy" and "handbook" are dealt with under different
procedures. The SB is well within its purview to modify the
handbook without initiating an extensive public process. Now some
will argue that handbook changes should be handled the same way as any
other policy issue, and those who feel that way would be well within
their rights to suggest such methodology to the SB for
consideration. However, the fact the we may not have understood
that the two types of policy go through different processes does not
mean that the SB was in violation of their responsibilities by making
the change as they did. Whether it was clearly noted on the
agenda or not is also a matter of interpretation -- but the fact is
that it WAS on the agenda. Whether one believes the notice was
obvious enough or not, notice was given in accordance with required SB
procedure.
(2) The issue of the alcohol policy was already on the SB radar before
it was violated. Like it or not, believe it or not, we should
allow for the possibility that this October decision might very well
have been made on 10/14 even without the concurrent violations.
It may very well have been a "perfect storm" situation where a
direction the board was headed coincided with an incident
involving that very direction. And as easy as it would be to say
"well, they should have stopped what they were doing and waited,
because to act as they did was politically incorrect", you could also
say that for them to NOT act when they were planning to anyway would be
just as problematic and aggrieve just as many people. For every
person that accuses them of being reactionary, there could be another
person that could say that NOT acting when they were already scheduled
to would be reactionary -- i.e. to stop their already moving process
because of the violation would suggest a fear to pursue the course they
were already on. So again, while it obviously looks to many,
because of the overall timing, like the board made a knee jerk decision
as a result of the violations; it's just as valid to suggest that the
board simply completed the last step of a process already underway, and
the fact that the policy was violated at that same moment was a
coincidence. I know from years of observing city council that
this can and does happen. I have seen a decision get made that
has been in process for months, and as fate would have it, something
happens the day of the vote that makes it look like council made a
snap, reactionary decision -- and people who have paid no attention to
council in years come in by the drove accusing them of not being
responsive to the voters and ramrodding something through behind closed
doors, when I know for a fact that they have been discussing the issue
for months, holding public hearings, and doing everything short of
knocking on everyone's doors to give notice. It's all I can do to
not punch myself in the head when that happens. So it may be that
we have to allow for that same possibility in this SB issue. I'm
not trying to say it was one way or the other in this case; I'm simply
trying to point out that there's precedent for either scenario.
(3) The school board deals with umpteen numbers of issues all the time,
any of which could blow up unexpectedly. While it would be nice
if everyone had a crystal ball to know what issues will be volatile and
which won't, the fact is that no one has one of those. I also
know from observing council that there are critical issues, month after
month, that generate no testimony. And then, something will come
up that everyone thinks is a no brainer that ends up being the most
controversial issue of the decade. It sucks, but it
happens. So again, without speaking favorably to either side of
this SB deal, it seems appropriate to consider this possibility.
(4) We would be mistaken to think that this 10/14 vote has been a cut
and dried slam dunk for our school board. I know for a fact that
some of them have been reflecting on this with considerable pain in
their private thoughts, wondering if it was the right thing to do, as I
expect any of us would do after getting the kind of beating they've had
over the last couple of months. That's not to say that the
aggrieved people have not had a point. But I get the strong sense
that any of us who think that the SB is unaware of the blowback are not
giving them any benefit of the doubt. After all (as always),
there are two schools of thought: (1) If they make a hard decision, get
a bunch of outcry, and choose to stand by what they did, then they get
accused of not listening to the public, or (2) If they make a hard
decision, get a bunch of outcry, and change what they did, then they
get accused of being wishy-washy, blowing with the wind, and submitting
to mob-rule. Those of us that watch Star Trek know that as
the Kobiyashi Maru -- the no-win scenario.
(5) All of us who have had good board training know that there is (and
should be) debate and differing opinions on a motion prior to the
vote. But it is universally known and accepted that once the vote
is made, ALL of the board members are supposed to stand behind it,
regardless of how they voted. So if any of us were expecting them
to continue to fight it out after the vote, then we need to recognize
that to do so would be very bad form on their part. They are
technically obligated to support the will of the majority even if they
were in the minority when the vote was taken. To do otherwise is
unethical. If a board member wanted to continue to fight the
board in that manner, s/he would need to resign and return to Joe
Public status. Then they can do whatever they like.
(6) I have gained some additional insight into the resistance to
answering my 3 questions that had not occurred to me. While I
meant for those questions to be objective, I think that they
inadvertently got swept up and interpreted as yet another attack, or
demand for confession that they did something wrong. That was NOT
the case. All I was trying to do is take their temperature and
see where they stood after the initial public outcry, with the hope
that I would be able to assist them in getting their message out and
educating the public on where they were at. However, the board
was getting dozens of emails-- some of them downright hateful --
ripping them up one side and down the other. Any of us in that
situation can probably imagine that eventually, EVERYTHING starts to
look like an accusation, whether it's intended that way or not.
So I think some of them felt that I was gunning for them, because
that's what so many other people had been doing. And in that
context, I can now understand why it took longer than I expected to get
those answers. I know in my own head that I never ask questions
like that to be leading, or demand a "particular" answer. If you
look at the wording of my questions, you can see that the answer could
have easily been "Yes, I stand by what we did and I would do it again",
or "Actually, I think we were hasty, and I plan to be more deliberate
in the future". But if you've been through a rampage of
accusations (justified or not), my questions could be interpreted as
another strafing run, regardless of my intentions.
As always, I am not trying to prosecute or defend either side
here. I'm simply trying to provide as much information as
possible so that people can have a maximum amount of detail as they
move forward. Everyone can have whatever opinion they like --
that's America. But opinions in the absence of the full breadth
of information can go awry -- so the more facts and perspectives we can
get out there in complicated, emotional issues like this, the easier
(in my opinion) it becomes to be broad thinking and community minded.
Whether this sheds any light for you or not, I hope the lines of
communication will remain open, the dialogue will continue, and that
we'll all be better for the experience -- whether that ends up being a
greater appreciation for our elected officials, more scrutiny and
pointed questions during elections, a greater desire to vote and pay
attention to public processes, or whatever growth opportunity presents
itself.
And speaking for myself, I hope that one of the things that comes out
of all this that that pubic officials will assimilate that which I have
always tried to make clear: I don't look at my role as your local
broadcaster to be one of jumping on bandwagons. I view my job as
an endeavor to provide as much information as possible on ALL
perspectives. Do I have personal opinions? Sure! But
they do NOT interfere with how I do my job. I can, and many times
have, interviewed people with whom I strongly disagree. But not
only has the guest not known that at the time, I've actually gotten
nasty calls after such interviews accusing me of SUPPORTING that
guest's stance because I didn't "interrogate" them enough. Well,
I'm not an interrogator. I like to do my best to facilitate for
the person at hand, to try to understand where they are coming from,
even if I don't like it. That's how I was trained, and that's the
reputation we've achieved here at KLAM and KCDV, with virtually no
deviation, if any at all. So to all of you who hold public office
(or anyone for that matter), I want to state again that you will always
get a fair shake when you deal with me, regardless of how I may
personally feel initially about your stance -- because I don't believe
I can learn anything new if I already have my mind made up about
everything. The only time you will find me turning into a "press
dog" is when I get a bunch of "no comment, no comment, no
comment". That sets me off a bit because then I can't make any
progress for anyone, and the public is left with nothing but
speculation and rumor. But to all those who are helpful to the
process of community understanding, I promise that you will always have
a friend here -- whether that's on or off the record.
#45 -- parent -- added 12/20,
7:29pm
Hi JR. Thanks for your addition to the SB forum page. It at
least
clarifies that they did not do anything "illegal", when dealing with the
abrupt change to that policy. Not illegal, but certainly
inappropriate in
my opinion.
You have done a great job in getting the information out, and in
pressing
the school board to be more forthcoming about their reasons. You
manage to
get your point, or question, across firmly without being insulting or
sarcastic. It also helped greatly that you are not a parent that
is
directly involved.
I will accept whatever policy the board adopts, knowing that I have my
own
parenting techniques to impose upon my remaining high school age
daughter.
I just worry about those kids who don't have strict parents. You
want to
help them all but there is only so much you can do.
(J.R. reply -- thanks. Doing my best. And of course you are
right that it will be parents, thru their actions or lack of them, that
will always be the ultimate arbiters of this type of thing. The
challenge is: to what extent, and in what manner, does society
intervene on behalf of those students who do not receive the kind of
parenting that prevents this kind of thing?)
#46 -- citizen (same as #43, I
think) -- added 12/20, 7:30pm
Interesting -- you say that handbook and policy issues go through
different processes, and that might have been confusing to the
public. Well, if it’s confusing, then shouldn’t the school board
change that? After all, it was “confusion” that set this whole
thing off in the first place, and they changed the handbook. So
maybe they ought to be "consistent" by starting to make handbook
changes the same way they make policy changes to eliminate “confusion”.
(J.R. here -- since this was directed to me, I’ll go ahead and respond:
fair point -- if I were you, I’d pitch it to them and try to get some
support. In theory, they should be receptive)