Saturday, June 21, 2014

UPDATE to Last Post Submitted by Jill Quinones on the Superintendent's Learning Committee Selection Process

We have now received from Ms. Quinones links to the District's Responses to the Freedom of Information Act request she submitted regarding the Superintendent's Learning Committee.  She asked that in the interest of full transparency, that we provide the community access to these documents.

Click each link to open:

D181's Response Letter to Ms. Quinones dated June 20, 2014

Quinones FOIA Response to Request #1

Quinones FOIA Response to Requests #2 and 3 (Part 1)

Quinones FOIA Response to Requests #2 and 3 (Part 2)


Anonymous said...

I urge the bloggers to remove from this post the personal resumes of the applicants. I am not comfortable with my personal information being posted on the internet. Thank you.

The Parents said...

To Anonymous. We respectfully decline your request to remove the links to documents that D181 produced to Ms. Quinones. The documents constitute public records and according to the cover letter that she was sent, all information that is considered private under the Freedom of Information Act was redacted before it was produced. In the interest of full transparency, we will not withhold the public's access to these public records and force interested community members to file a FOIA request to obtain these documents.

Anonymous said...

I strongly agree with the first poster. I am not an elected or public official but a parent volunteer. I think it could be argued that the personal resumes of the applicants do not constitute public information under FOIA and, for me, the bigger issue is that it is an invasion of privacy of these volunteers. Yes, general information about their background and areas of expertise may be relevant to this discussion, however, their detailed employment information is not. Furthermore, this type of action is only going to result in parents becoming unwilling to volunteer for these types of positions and/or the elimination of them, neither of which is what is best for the students of 181.
What is the goal of posting this much detailed information? To cause participants of the committee to step down? Elimination of the committee because some knowledgeable parents weren't chosen? To cause the applicants to be angry at the administration for releasing the information? If the goal is truly to analyze the integrity of the selection process, that goal could be achieved without publishing the resumes. The goal of this blog is to help D181 students. Publishing these detailed resumes does nothing but, ultimately, hurt them. There is no valid reason for doing so.

The Parents said...

The reason for posting is because we are a blog that promotes transparency. Not of private information, but public information. People who submitted applications, which included resumes and background information that they believed supported their choice by the administration to serve on the public commitee -- a public committee that will potentially impact all of D181's students -- need to understand the Freedom of Information Act. This law promotes OPEN governance and transparency of public business. Unless the administration erred in releasing the resumes as public documents, there is nothing wrong in publishing them here to provide the information Ms. Quinones relied upon in writing the post she submitted yesterday and the chart she created. If we start to pick and choose what public records to provide the community access to, we are doing a disservice to the public that has a fundamental right to access these documents.

Anonymous said...

I strongly disagree with Posters 10:33 and 12:05. The resumes are public records. The applications asked for supporting documents. Why don't people want the community to see who was picked and form their own opinion as to the qualifications of people who will be "advising" the administration and board on decisions that will affect our children? What do you have to hide? If you thought you were qualified enough to be selected then you shouldn't hide your credentials and accomplishments. You should stand proudly behind them. Of course there will be community members who disagree with the selection of one or more of the committee members. Who cares? In this community, there is never 100% agreement on anything. The bigger issue is whether the process was fair, which it clearly (in my opinion) was not. But as long as the administration and other committee members get to see the background of the parents who applied, so should the community. That is what transparency is all about.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I feel that parents resumes should be removed from this site. The parents who applied for this position only submitted their resumes because they were required to by Dr. Schuster. They were never warned that their cover letters and resumes would be accessible to all on the internet. If this is how volunteers will be treated by the blog, it may have a negative impact on the number of people who chose to volunteer for our schools in the future.

In my opinion, Dr. Renee Schuster maliciously maligned innocent parents as being "bullies" just for asking valid questions of the district. If the district had nothing to hide, they would be capable of answering parent questions. Instead of factually answering those questions though, Schuster decided to disparage and slander parents with a negative label. These parents' names should not be listed unless they specifically give permission. They are not public or government employees. They are just more victims of Dr. Schuster's delusions.

If this committee is being engineered with an eye towards excluding people who are familiar with the district and its current problems, much time will be wasted until the others come up to speed. Regardless, the truth has a way of coming to light, no matter how hard Dr. Schneider and Dr. Schuster try to stack the odds in their favor.

Dr. Schuster's awful "Bully Memo" that tried to pretend that certain teachers, or perhaps principals, did not want to work with some parents is only further evidence that she has been threatening parents, principals AND teachers since the moment she came to D181. Perhaps the names of THOSE accusers should be made public. Which teachers cried because parents had questions for them? Sounds like Dr. Schuster has a very active imagination. Maybe those teachers cried because they were threatened by administrators that they would be fired if they did not follow directives from the superintendent?? Instead of speaking for herself, Renee Schuster has decided to pass the blame onto teachers? June 30 can not come soon enough. Good riddance Renee.

Anonymous said...

Of course the administration erred in releasing the resumes but the blog did not need to publish them. It is dangerous and highly inconsiderate to the applicants who may not want personal information made public not just to D181 community but, also, and more concerning, to the public at large. Hiding behind the veil of transparency does not make it less so. Let's not forget that the owners of the blog have chosen to remain anonymous. There is nothing "transparent" about that and it seems hypocritical in light of their insistence now on absolute transparency. Note that the owner of the new D86 blog has published his name.
The questions and concerns about the selection process are valid, however, the information contained in the cover letters and resumes could have been summarized to make the same points without compromising the volunteer applicants who now have personal information about their childrens schools, home addresses and phone numbers made public. It is irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

2:31: I disagree that the administration made a mistake when they produced the resumes. They appear to have blacked out addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, which under FOIA law is information that is private and must not be produced. While perhaps it is not transparent of the bloggers to continue to not disclose their names, they have already explained their motive for doing so. But in this case, the poster did identify her name and submitted the public record links so everyone else could see what she FOIA'd. The attack on the blog in this case seem wrong, but exactly the sort of thing that the administration is probably relishing right now as they read this blog. Divide and conquer. That's been their motto. What should NOT have happened is that parents who are well respected were labeled as bullies by Dr. Schuster who then placed the responsibility of this label on teachers. Again, more divide and conquer. I won't name the two people who were excluded from the applicant pool in this comment. But I will say, that I personally know both of them and their conduct has always been and will, no doubt, always be beyond reproach. For anyone in the administration (because frankly I doubt that our teachers labeled them as such) to suggest they are bullies is slanderous. If true, and they intimidated the teachers to the point where the parents could now be excluded from serving on a committee, this would require that the parents be accused, under Policy 8:030 of inappropriate conduct, that would allow for them to be excluded from school grounds or meetings. But if that were the case, the parents would be FIRST entitled to a hearing before the BOE. I very much doubt that these parents were ever told they were acting inappropriately, or were threatened (as Dr. Schuster has threatened other parents in the past) with 8:030, or afforded due process and a hearing before the BOE. I for one hope that both of these parents run for the school board next Spring. Let's elect them and broom out the members who have shown such careless disregard for the law and allowed Dr. Schuster to continue HER reign of intimidation.

Anonymous said...

Well said 3:29. The focus needs to be on the PROCESS, which was Ms. Quinones' theme in her first post and not on the parents who applied or were selected. The focus needs to be on the horrific label that Dr. Schuster allowed to be placed on 2 of the most highly respected parents in our community. I also know both these parents, and to even suggest that they are bullies is ludicrous and delusional. The focus needs to be on the obvious re-write of the selection process rules to suit Dr. Schuster's agenda. The focus needs to be on making sure that Dr. White is made aware of all of the past negative, damaging and slanderous practices that the BOE allowed or ignored under Dr. Schuster's watch, so that he can make sure they stop immediately. The focus needs to be on making sure that new board members are elected next Spring and that Yaeger, Nelson and Turek are unseated once and for all. Yes, let's all vote (even if by write in campaign) for these two parents. They would serve our district well as our elected representatives.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the focus needs to be on the process issues. Let's start with the FOIA request Ms. Quinones filed. If it had been filed in D86, not only would her request have been posted on the district website, but so would the response letter and copies of ALL documents the district produced. D86 has been 100% transparent in disclosing for everyone the public records that it produces to FOIA requestors. Go to the following link that opens up the AGENDA archive for all D86 board meetings: Open up the links for any of the business meetings and then scroll down through any agenda to the FOIA reports that are presented. Every single FOIA is listed with its own link to the request, response letter and produced documents. Neither the bloggers, nor Ms. Quinones, should be attacked for doing what the D181 administration and BOE should have been doing all along. Posting all of the public records for the public to access on the D181 website. Again, the focus needs to be on the process, or lack thereof, by the D181 administration and BOE under Schuster's leadership.

Anonymous said...

Does D181 post any of the FOIA stuff on its website?

Anonymous said...

I am totally confused by the people upset at the posting. Yes, its your resume, but when you provided it to the district it became a public record. What does that mean? It means anybody can look at it at any time--just like in a library.

And whats so secret, that you attended West Central Institute of Technology? that you worked at Kraft as a macaroni and cheese taster? Is there a single thing in any resume that has not be recited by you to strangers, to friends, to companies a thousand times.

The fact of the matter is that if these committees have utility, the community should know who is being selected and why. It limits cronyism, it drives quality, it attracts quality applicants.

And these complaints involve a level of self-obsession that is truly Hinsdalean. Do you honestly think that clusters of your neighbors have downloaded your resume and engaged in a detailed process of analysis. Forget it. The purpose of this posting is to get a flavor for the process of selection. Nobody cares about your individual resume, nobody is memorizing it, and the idea that your resume is rocking the community is a degree of narcissistic self involvement that suggests that you need to stop taking selfies.

The Parents said...

All they do is include a FOIA report on Board Docs that includes a link to each request. Then there is a FOIA report prepared by the administration that says if the requests were completed or not. They have never, to our knowledge, posted the actual responsive documents. Here is the link for the Quinones FOIA request that is on the 6/23/14 Board Docs:$file/Quinones_FOIA_6_23_14.pdf
The agenda item only indicates that one of 3 requests was completed and that documents are available for review at the district office. They do not post a link for the documents they produced, as is the practice in D86.

Anonymous said...

Please help our district Dr. White! You have quite a mess to clean up and we are all counting on you.

jay_wick said...

I applaud the efforts of concerned parents to highlight the flawed processes that unfortunately seem to have resulted in the selection of this committee.

Further, these short comings continue to cause me to question why this, or frankly any committee with parents / comunity members in the district, would ever be constituted as other than something that is held to the standards of Illinois Open Meetings Act.

Certainly if Dr. White or any other member of the district level staff wants to get some "off the record" input from community members or parents there are ways to do that -- I know I would be more than happy to talk to him informally at my home or over a cup of coffee at Quinn's or Starbucks. Similarly when Dr. White is at a meeting of the Foundation or Chamber of Commerce there won't be any opportunity to file a FOIA to find out what was discussed.

When the district staff and elected officials engage in sensitive discussions that involve staff or students the law provides for those things to happen "in closed season" and the records, include records, need to be retained for legal compliance.

Using a "superintendent's committee" to do an end run around state law is an illegitimate use of a loop hole and sends the wrong message in a district where there have not only been recent abuses of the Illinois Open Meetings Act but a rogue BOE member who has attempted to bully committee members with threats to tighten the act while he cravenly uses the act for personal financial gain.

Anonymous said...

I urge the administration to issue a written public apology to the two respected community members they defamed as being bullies. It is particularly troubling that they did so privately and with no evidence. What a dangerous precedent. I am truly horrified for this district.

Jill Quinones said...

Dear Blog Readers and Superintendent Committee Applicants,

Wow! Quite the lively discussion. Please know it was never my intent to embarrass or “out” anyone by having the response to my FOIA posted. Obviously, all personal references to address, phone, e-mail, children’s names, ages, and teachers were blacked out before this information was even given to me, so I strongly disagree with the poster at 2:31 who states that this was irresponsible – it was not.

I agree with the poster at 1:24 who said the applicants should be proud of their accomplishments – each and everyone of you has accomplished amazing things! I am sure each of you selected will work your hardest on behalf of our children.

To the poster at 12:57, my only reason (it wasn’t a goal) for submitting the responses for posting was to back up the information I summarized in the chart. It is not my intention to get anyone to step down, to eliminate the committee, or for the applicants to be mad at administration for releasing the documents (which they were required by law to do). 12:57 you ask, “If the goal is truly to analyze the integrity of the selection process, that goal could be achieved without publishing the resumes.” I have to disagree. Had I not provided this information, I’m sure there would be an equal number of readers criticizing my summary as inaccurate or fabricated or sour grapes. I really do think it is best if the facts speak for themselves.

People, this information is available to ANYONE who asks for it and they can do whatever they want with it once they get it. I know the local reporters quite often submit follow up requests for FOIA’d information once they read the requests that ARE posted on the D181 website. Maybe having it on the internet makes it a little bit easier to access, but anyone determined to get it won’t take the easy way out anyway.

I am truly sorry if anyone submitting an application and supporting documentation didn’t realize it became a public document to be accessed by anyone the minute it was received by the District. To the poster at 1:31, no one was REQUIRED by Dr. Schuster to submit a resume – it was optional. Several people, including one that was chosen, submitted nothing but the cover page! Others wrote letters/statements. I cannot believe that people would be dissuaded from applying/volunteering for things in the future because their applications were made public, as there is nothing negative in any of the personal information. Although a few cover letters spoke out against certain things happening in the District, much of that information was redacted.

Unfortunately, this appears to have been a painful learning experience for those not familiar with Open Government and FOIA’s, and again, for that I am truly sorry. If I thought there was anything negative in the individual application information I might urge the blog to take it down, but there is not. I can’t say it any better than the poster at 4:05 – “the community should know who is being selected and why. It limits cronyism, it drives quality, it attracts quality applicants.” 

Anonymous said...

To the poster at 5:22. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Dr. Schuster and her fellow administrators have threatened and labeled parents. She has done the same thing to at least 3 other parents just in the last year that I personally know of! There is definitely a pattern of her using threats and labels to dissuade parents from asking questions of her. It really is a terrible example for an administrator to be setting.

Anonymous said...

Schuster and her fellow administrators are the bullies. The teacher's association said in public comments that they belittle teachers and do not respect them. Now we have evidence that they do the same thing to parents. THEY should be excluded from the committee and they definitely should have been excluded from the selection process. This year has been a total debacle - get it together D181!

Anonymous said...

By the way, everyone should check board docs. The agenda for Monday's boe meeting is posted. A few observations:

1. Elm is running out of space. It is quite clear that the administration needs to find a new home. Yet all the solutions involve students and teachers making due (RTI and differentiation specialists in the hall, MRC conversions ect). The elm offices are quite spacious. Also we have a few administrator vacancies. If they don't want to move out completely, how about giving up some of their space? Why should students be in portables? Why not administrators?

2. It looks like the community engagement process for HMS is on hold for now.

3. There are some amendments to the budget.

4. Class size projections are listed. Doug is doing a great job at keeping class sizes low. He will be missed.

5. Dr. White's report is refreshing. I wish they would stop calling it Dr. Schuster's report on the thumbnails.

6. There is a year-end review. It is quite one sided. And again they are parading a satisfaction number from the October survey - the same survey that the administration and BOE refused to ask satisfaction questions on. Also, the administration prides themselves on being transparent and good communicators. Dr. White makes it clear in his report that he did not prepare this review and that it will be different next time around. Bravo Dr. White.

There was a bunch of other stuff, everyone should check it out.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, well Mr. Turek. The check listing on the 6/23 board docs shows you are being reimbursed $529.28 for food/hospitality. How much you want to bet it is reimbursement for hosting the dinners for superintendent candidates and board members at Ruth Lake Country Club during the interview process? Oh yes, and that means that you will probably be able to count that expense toward your monthly club obligations, won't you? How convenient and yet how -- in my opinion -- corrupt if you used your position as an elected official for personal gain - and yes, reducing your personal monthly club obligation by getting D181 to pay it would be exactly that. Seems like an obvious conflict of interest... To all the FOIA "bullies" out there, how about filing one to uncover the truth behind this expense reimbursement?

Anonymous said...

FYI - Renee Schuster's last on-site day was June 13th.
How about if all you bloggers and fellow d181 parents, come to the BOE meeting Monday, June 23rd @ Elm to welcome and support our new Superintendent, Dr. White. What a great way to show him that you all support him and want to start out on the right foot.
just a thought. . . . . . . .

The Parents said...

10:07 p.m.: How do you know this? If so, does this mean she will or won't receive compensation through June 30, her announced last day? Hmmhh? Let's guess......

Anonymous said...

I was just reading through the responses to requests #2 and # 3 (Part 1), and I saw BOE member Heneghan's page long memo to Dr. Schuster asking what various charges were for.

Did she ever answer these? I found #1 and number #8 and #9 particularly interesting. Who purchased something from Why didn't any of the other BOE members catch this?

Subject: Board questions

From: "Heneghan, Brendan"
Date: 4/6/14, 11:31 PM

To: Renée Schuster

Dr. Schuster,

I have the foiiowing questions

1. Can you post the legal bills for the past month?

8. Check 4485 for 28.59 to What is the name of the ítem purchased
and a description and what is the purpose of this purchase?

9. Check 20 2540 for 179.95 to factoryoutìetstoreßom. What was purchased?

Jill Quinones said...

Just sent this evening. You can post as comment or stand alone.


Dr. Schuster,

I don’t know whether you are still receiving D181 email, but my comments here are equally relevant to some of your Administration and the BOE, so I am sending it to them as well. I also would like Dr. White aware of what has transpired so he can make it a top priority to make sure future processes are carried out with more integrity.

First, let me assure you that while my concerns are an outgrowth of the “process” used to select candidates for the Superintendent’s Learning Committee, this is not about not being included on that Committee. It actually never was my intention to apply for that Committee. Ms. Garg contacted me on the day applications were first due asking if I would consider it. I already have 25 hours of things to do in a 24-hour day, but as always, I would have gladly done my part if I had been chosen. I have no issue with any of the parents that were chosen – I am sure they will work tirelessly. However, the “process” was flawed from the beginning when you extended the deadline despite having received by your first deadline more than enough applications from extremely talented people from every school except Elm. The fact that you or some of your administrators didn’t like some of the people who applied did not justify extending the deadline. Obviously enough people knew of the first deadline given that more than you were looking for applied. The flawed process became unsupportable when you created your own secretive pre-screening and gave no thought to the resulting defamation.


I don’t know whether to call it ironic or disingenuous that you would set up criteria to prescreen applicants as possible bullies of teachers when not that long ago you personally (together with BOE Members) witnessed a then-BOE member of the community commit an assault and battery against another BOE member and rather than condemn the behavior you rewarded it by appointing that person to a District Committee. It seems to me at a minimum you pick and choose when to apply your own rules. Your actions suggest that your desire to keep bullies out of all aspects of the District only applies when it supports your purpose.

Jill Quinones said...

Part 3

Over the past 12 years, I have had A LOT of communication with my three children’s teachers; some positive, some questioning, and some critical. I have written letters praising teachers efforts on my children’s behalf and asked that they be put in the teacher’s permanent file.

Because I am a teacher and I moved to this community because of the reputation of the schools, I have very high expectations of my children’s teachers. I am totally “one of those moms” and admit to it. But I am also a teacher who deals with “those moms” every day. I know when parent advocacy crosses the line and becomes adversarial. I go out of my way to raise my concerns with teachers by first giving the benefit of the doubt to the teacher (sometimes against my child’s own version of the story) and making it my child’s issue – not theirs.

Just like a doctor being a patient, it is not always easy being a teacher-mom. This District has some teachers on staff who are way better at their craft than I am. It has others who are not. I have questioned, suggested, and offered constructive criticism to my children’s teachers because I know education just as well as they do, but I know my children better than they do.


I have never yelled at teachers, called them names, threatened them, or cursed at them. If a teacher has ever “come to the principal for assistance crying, consider quitting, or reporting that they are being bullied” then this is news to me. And it shouldn’t be. And shame on Mr. Russell, Mr. Chisausky, or Mr. Sonntag (apologies to whomever of you this does not apply) if this ever happened on their watch and they didn’t advise me of it. I would want to be aware of it, and I would want to remedy the situation with the teacher. I made a teacher cry, want to quit, or feel bullied and the administrator in charge did not feel it was necessary to talk to me about it AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED? Really? Isn’t supporting teachers in that way part of their job? How convenient for you that they remembered something at the same time Committee applications were due.

Any communication from me that a teacher may have deemed as “negative” was written solely because for some reason the teacher and my child were not connecting and his/her education was suffering as a result. It certainly was not meant to bully or intimidate and it troubles me greatly that a teacher might have felt this way and I was not advised. I should have been told at the time it happened. I certainly should be told the specifics now. I should never have been preemptively removed from consideration for appointment to a District committee without being advised of these allegations. As to some of us, this "process" emulated a witch-hunt or kangaroo court and was anything but transparent.

I have worked tirelessly on behalf of this District for years, long before you arrived, and to be labeled as a bully by you Dr. Schuster, who places the responsibility of that label on principals and teachers, principals who didn’t find my behavior to even warrant a discussion with me at the time it supposedly happened, is outrageous behavior by the head of a PUBLIC SCHOOL District.

I respectfully request that you (or Dr. White) now do the right thing and (i) have the relevant administrator provide me with the specifics upon which you relied to remove my application from consideration and (ii) ask Louise Perkowski – the Walker School teacher representative to the Committee – if she feels my inclusion on the Committee would have been in anyway threatening or intimidating to her or the other teachers and report what she says to the selection committee.

Griffin, I have included you on this letter because we have three years together coming up. I would truly appreciate it if you ever think (or a teacher comes to you saying) that I have crossed the line from advocate to bully that you let me know right away so that I can remedy the situation.

Jill Quinones said...

Part 4

Dr. White, I implore you to do a better job than this when you and your staff conduct yourselves relative to the parents in this District. You were quoted recently in the Doings newspaper as saying, “It was my goal to ensure the selection was done in a fair and transparent manner. All of the 28 applicants were considered.” I respectfully disagree. The entire selection committee did not consider all 28 applicants because two of us were preemptively removed. I respectfully disagree that the process was fair and transparent because a secret standard was first applied and used as part of the decision making process without the candidates against whom it was wielded being informed and offered the chance to know what was being said about them.

You were also quoted as saying, “It was also important that the members have demonstrated an interest and ability to move forward in a positive direction, while focusing on issues not people.” Perhaps it is time to direct and demand of your Administrators and BOE the same perspective. I assure you, for parents it is now, will be, and always has been about the issues, not the people – especially those issues impacting their children on a daily basis.

Jill Quinones

Jill Quinones said...

Part 2


I am not sure who, when, or how you were approached by teachers with concerns about intimidation by parents being chosen to serve on the Committee, (I am assuming BEFORE March 1 or it would have been produced in response to my FOIA - perhaps I should FOIA specifically that issue), but the fact that you did not “advertise” that criteria reeks of non-transparency and collusion. You state that you didn’t want to embarrass anyone? How would advising applicants that teacher bullying was one of the criteria you were looking at when reviewing applications embarrass anyone? And why wasn’t the selection committee – including BOE Member Garg, informed of this criterion BEFORE you applied it. And frankly, why wasn’t the decision about whether an applicant could be deemed a teacher bully part of the selection committee’s decision making process – all of them? Too much unilateral power wielded in secret for a public school district. And I won't even discuss the fact that principals were asked outside of the selection committee process to bring forth recommendations as to whom they wanted as the parent representative for their building. Smoke and mirrors....


And again, either ironic or disingenuous – but certainly inconsistent – is your application of Board Policy 8:030. You have championed this Policy when it suits your purpose. Although it is entitled ”Visitors to and Conduct on School Property” you have on at least one occasion that I know of decided it applies to e-mails from parents as well. So, if any of the alleged teacher bullying happened either in person or through e-mail, shouldn’t this Policy have kicked in? Shouldn’t the “bully” have been notified of his/her misconduct and been given a chance to respond and/or request the hearing referenced in the Policy preferably at the time of the incident, but certainly before being excluded from consideration for a committee?


It seems to have become standard practice recently in this District (for those of us who have been around a while it has not always been this way) that when you, some of your Administrators, or even some BOE members are challenged on your Professional opinions, philosophies, conclusions, or practices that you, the Administrator, and/or BOE member respond by attacking not the critic’s opinion, philosophy, conclusion or practice, but by attacking the critic Personally. I have witnessed it happen by Administrators and/or BOE members to other Administrators and/or BOE Members, to teachers, and to parents. At a recent BOE meeting the teachers even expressed, "We do not want to be labeled as negative or complaining or questioning authority, but we do want to ask questions, get clarification, and offer suggestions." I have heard about (but not witnessed) other occasions where the parent was on the receiving end of a personal attack by an Administrator or BOE Member, and now, apparently, I have been on the receiving end myself. I just don’t understand why teacher, parental or Board Member questioning or criticism of educational philosophies, decisions, etc. cannot be responded to with respect for the person while disagreeing with the message. How can you not consider these personal attacks to be bullying?