Reporting Questionable Conduct Is A "Threat" (Unless You're Debra Raeder)

Sometimes I get such a kick out of the Duo's blatant hypocrisy!

With regard to contacting the lawyer directly (discussed at the July meeting), they both recently cast aspersions on Murphy's explanation with empty rhetoric, leaving out the actual facts of which they claim to be so fond. They completely omitted any mention of Erb's extremely defensive outburst, in which he said that he was the "staff" person in question. He never once disputed the timeline or substance of Murphy's description of events.

Apparently, Murphy was telling the truth. Otherwise, Erb would have specifically refuted at least some of the substance of Murphy's statement once he identified himself as the "staff" person.

As for Erickson's "Clintonesque" comment, that is pure sophistry, and he knows it! There is a huge difference between asking for the definitions of "threat" and "is." The word "is" has one clearly understood meaning. The word "threat" (when speaking of lawyers in particular) can have any number of meanings and was purposely used to inflame the situation. Saying you will report questionable conduct (is that really a "threat" anyway) is totally different from a physical threat. Raeder was using the timeless "Do you deny you beat your wife?" tactic. Speaking of being "worthy of the best litigator," it was quite artful for Murphy to force Raeder to define the "threat" rather than sounding defensive by doing it himself.

Where the Duo is concerned, here's the clincher. Several meetings ago, didn't Raeder "threaten" Douglas with possibly reporting her for an open meeting violation? For some strange reason, the Duo failed to chastise Raeder for that "threat." Unfortunately for all of them, Douglas' comment turned out not to be a violation at all. In fact, the statutory reason it was allowed was printed right on the agenda under Raeder's nose!

That wasn't just a "threat," it was an "empty threat" and the height of hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is nothing new for Raeder. Apparently when you're motivated by irrational hatred (with a lot of butt-covering thrown in), your own hypocrisy is tough to notice.

Speaking of Micromanagement...

The Dynamic Duo and other bloggers like to label as "micromanagement" any attempt by Douglas, Knecht and/or Murphy to perform the oversight someone in their position is supposed to provide. Actually, the mere discussion of new or different oversight or accountability measures often causes the label to be invoked.

Let's see if those bloggers will be consistent in their application of that label. My guess is that it is a one-way street and that if an example of "micromanagement" by anyone else is pointed out, the response will be, "But that was different!"

Debra Raeder has developed a well-deserved reputation among PUSD insiders for making demands about who should be interviewed and/or hired for various upper-level staff openings. For example, the current Centennial High principal was Raeder's hand-picked choice for that position. A more egregious example was when candidates were interviewed for the PR Director position currently held by Jim Cummings. Multiple DAC employees have first-hand knowledge of Raeder calling up in a rage, demanding to know if a particular applicant would be interviewed. I will refrain from mentioning the applicant's name to avoid embarassing this person.

Recently, the board expressed interest in resuming a practice that used to be typical. The board used to convene in executive session to consider virtually all principals, assistant principals, directors and top-level administrators. That changed immediately prior to when Douglas was sworn in (but after she was elected). The timing of the change in PRACTICE, which did not coincide with a change in official POLICY, is very unlikely to be a coincidence.

About a year later, the POLICY regarding principals, directors and top-level administrators was changed from "make appointment" to "consider appointment." It has been claimed by some that this one-word change limits the board to discussing the one candidate the superintendent recommends. However, since all of the official actions of the board are labeled on the agenda as "consideration," it would be safe to say that the board has latitude in how they "consider." Whether they simply accept or reject the superintendent's recommendation or actually choose from amongst the finalists, with the superintendent's recommendation duly noted, should be up to their discretion, just as it was until recently. Accusations that such an interpretation "violates board policy" are absurd and mere rhetoric.

Apparently, the definition of "micromanagement" depends on whose actions are in question. Raeder gets a pass, but the new members don't. Who has an "agenda" now?

What's In A Name? or The "Dynamic Duo" Unmasked!

The Duo has confirmed their status by spending significant time and space reveling in my nicknaming them the "Dynamic Duo." Anyone who was taken even a basic writing or literature class would be able to recognize sarcasm when they read it, but not these "two." Actually, the inspiration for them was none other than Ren & Stimpy.

Since we're on the subject of nicknames, what exactly is so bad about"The Three Amigos," anyway? Last time I checked, "amigos" means "friends" and, after all, isn't that a good thing?

Compare PUSD's "Call to the Public" with Glendale & Peoria City Councils

We have been regaled recently by tales of "free speech" being quashed by the "new" PUSD board. On May 22, they modified (some say clarified) the Call to the Public during meetings so that it is now reserved for non-agenda items. Previously, some people (on both sides of issues) would "double-dip" and speak twice to the same agenda item, once during Call to the Public and again when the item came up.

I think most reasonable people would agree with the logic of this clarification. However, the defenders of the "old" board (which fought against enacting Call to the Public to begin with), have claimed this is a move to silence the critics of the "new" board. Depending on the critic, the new policy will "clamp down on the First Amendment rights of all of us" (Erickson) or eliminates "free speech" in PUSD (Rohrig). This drivel (and worse) has been spewed by the Duo and other bloggers in comments on both AzCentral and Newszap. Let's see if their claims stand up to outside scrutiny.

The logical basis of their claim is that PUSD is somehow out-of-step with other public bodies by limiting Call to the Public to non-agenda items. However, the facts of the matter are that both Glendale and Peoria have the exact same limitation clearly stated on their agendas. They must be fascists!

But seriously, it turns out Call to the Public in PUSD is significantly more accomodating than in either Glendale or Peoria. PUSD's Call to the Public is near the beginning of the agenda, while both cities' are at the very end. If the Amigos' true goal was actually to silence their critics, as claimed by some of those critics, placing the Call to the Public at the end of the agenda would be much more effective.

So to summarize, the Duo claims the Amigos, who supported creating Call to the Public, don't want you to have free speech, while they defend the "old" board, which opposed creating Call to the Public in the first place.

Who's the hypocrite now?

Comments & Facts on This Blog

My apologies for not approving comments sooner the past few days. Several comments, some supportive of me and some not, have waited equally. I was simply unable to check the blog for the past several days.

Several folks, both here and on other blogs, have accused me of not having my facts straight because they read my post as stating that the Duo have endorsed the recall. That is not correct, although I can understand how some people might have understood it that way.

I started the post by referring to "Several anonymous bloggers," which includes those who comment on the Duos' blogs, Newszap and AzCentral. There was a separate paragraph about the "Duo" that doesn't even reference the possible recall. The paragraph that references the possible recall refers to the "several" bloggers, as does my mission statement at the top of the blog.

So my "facts" are not wrong, after all. Some folks simply misinterpreted what I said. To avoid pointless discussion about tangental issues, I will grant that a reasonable person might have read it that way in good faith. I will be happy to clarify my intent for the future by re-wording the statement in the page header.