Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses. Sorry Dr. White, We are not buying them, although it appears Giltner and Turek have.

Yesterday the Bond Referendum Accountability Committee held it's third meeting to decide what should go into its final report.  We were unable to attend in person, but have now listened to the podcast of the meeting.  It is posted on the D181 website in 2 parts.    Below are the links that we encourage you to listen to.

9/25/17 Bond Accountability Committee Meeting Podcast Part 1
9/25/17 Bond Accountability Committee Meeting Podcast Part 2

In addition, here is the link to the news article published in the Hinsdale Doings.  It provides a good summary of the meeting:  9/26/17 Doings Article.  As you read the rest of our post, please keep in mind what Board President Burns told the reporter following the meeting:  

"What I didn't hear was him was him was accepting responsiblity for the error," Burns said Tuesday morning, after White read a statement at a Monday meeting of the district's Board Referendum Review and Accountability Committee.  "I believe the biggest issue is that even when all of this came to light, there was no disclosure to the board," Burns said.  "There's a difference between a legal responsbility and a fiduiary responsibility, and I don't believe Dr. White fulfilled his fiduciary responsibility because there wasn't disclosure to the board."  (Source:  9/26/17 Doings Article written by Chuck Fieldman.)

So what exactly did Dr. White say during the meeting?  In the interest of full transparency, we have transcribed most of the 8 minute statement he made at the beginning of the Accountability Committee meeting.  For those of you who want to listen to his full statement, it begins at Counter 01:00 and goes to 09:00 at the following link:  9/25/17 Bond Accountability Committee Meeting Podcast Part 1.

Following the transcription, we will first book end Dr. White's statement with one made by Committee Member Meeta Patel at the conclusion of the meeting. Next we will provide OUR opinions on Dr. White's various representations and excuses made in connection with his failure to follow the instructions given to him in the August 19, 2016 letter from the Board's attorney, Hauser Izzo.   (Link to letter: Click and go to P.24 of the 8/9/2017 Summary: Legal Notice and Related Procedures

Finally, we will report on the actions taken by the full Board of Education during their regular business meeting last night, which in our opinion, establish that two board members, Richard Giltner and Marty Turek, have lost sight of their fiduciary obligations to the District.

Dr. White's 9/25/17 Statement to the Accountability Committee:

For the first 1 minute and 38 seconds, Dr. White thanked the Committee members for their service.  The substance of his statement begins at Counter 01:38 at which point he states:

"My statement this evening is not intended to be a point by point response to information found on Board Docs, nor is it intended to be a thorough response to the conclusions being drawn by members of this committee. Frankly, that activity would take much more time than we have this evening and would also need to include others.  In addition, I am trying to do my best to participate in a way that is productive so that we can fulfill what I thought was at the core of the work of this committee, that being to reflect on the past and develop recommendations for the future.

I would also like to add that I am not trying to be defiant in this response but I feel the need to at least express my point of view regarding the draft conclusions that are being discussed.  Next I would like to share that i do not believe it is the district's responsibility to monitor the work of outside entities, however, I am not attempting to minimize the importance of this situation and process for out district.  Nor am I attempting to diminish my responsibility for making sure that we do our best to learn from the past and make warranted improvements.

In a perfect world, the work of this committee would not have been necessary, however, we do not live in a perfect world.  
People who know me best know that I am extremely reflective and I take time to, that I take my work very seriously.  As you can imagine, I have spent many hours reflecting on my work and considering the events that led us to this point.

My reflection has led me to conclude that I made a mistake when I relied on the DuPage County Election Commission to properly publish the referendum notification as required by law.  While I believe it was their responsibilityto complete that requirement, I completely understand why a conclusion is being made that the district could have been more proactive at that time.

The date in the letter from the DuPage County Election Commission did not trigger a response in my mind, nor I might add, in the minds of any other person that read the letter at that time.  I was mistakenly under the impression that the election commission would perform their duties as outlined in the resolution approved by the Board on August 12, 2017."

Dr. White read the entire resolution and the publication timing requirements, which we have decided not to repeat here, but it can be found at the following link:  HMS Referendum Resolution.  It should be noted that he appears to have made a mistake in stating the resolution was approved by the Board on August 12, 2017, because in fact it was approved on August 15, 2016 as documented on Board Docs.

"I should also add that the Board's attorney opined that 'it is the opinion of legal counsel that the district followed the required procedures which are the responsibility of the district.' The Board's attorney added 'I also note that the information provided by the election commission that the newspaper publication of the election notice would be made beginning the week of October 3, 2016 did not put the district on notice that such a publication would be completed prior to October 8.'

Given the luxury of 20/20 vision, I wish I would have not assumed that the election commission was going to publish the referendum notice within the required timeline.  However, I made that assumption and did not think to check the date mentioned in the October 3, 2016 letter.  Instead, I went through what I thought at the time to be a thorough process.  Even though the election commission's letter stated that the office was fulfilling the obligation of publishing the notice of the referendum once in a local community newspaper, I could have checked the date that was outlined in the memo.  

I have since learned that what we did at that time was very similar to practices of other entities that, we assumed, in that we assumed, that the election commission would properly fulfill its responsibilities.  I recognize that this does not dismiss my responsibilities on this matter.  

Since the time of the last Bond Referendum and Accountability Review Committee meeting, I have been asked why I did not bring the letters from Mr. Izzo and the election commission to the attention of the Board sooner than August 9, 2017.  It is certainly a fair question, but it should be noted that I believe this question is being asked without the luxury of 20/20 hindsight and is void of the context of that moment in time. In addition, given the legal opinion that the district has fulfilled its obligations, I saw no reason to conduct an archival collection and or analysis of any documents or processes until the work of this committee began.

I want to also make it clear that I approached the work of collecting documents and providing a chronology for the August 9th response for this committee in an unbiased and factual manner.  In other words, I simply did a chronological review of the documents and emails in response to the request from this committee.  I did not do an analysis of documents prior to the formation of this committee nor during the process of collecting information for this work.  It was, and still is, my understanding that the responsibility of drawing conclusions is the work of this committee.

To this point I would like to remind the commitee that I questioned who would be the authors of the reports to be published during this process and I made a public statement during the July 26th committee meeting related to this in that I sought clarification that the administration was not passing judgment and or taking any action on the conclusions or submissions of committee members.

Instead the adminisgtrations responsibility was only to compile the information received from the individual committee members.  I went on to state 'the administration will be more than happy to participate in the creation of the report, but we don't want the community to come back and criticize us for creating the report as directed.'

It has been stated by some that I have been misleading and less than transparent during this process.  Frankly, it never has been nor will it ever be my intent to mislead or to be anything but transparent in my work.  I attempted to provide an unbiased response to the committee's requests for information so that we could have an honest and open discussion related to the situation with the goal of fulfilling the objectives of the settlement agreement.  I have concluded, I am sorry, I have conducted many archival reviews during my career that have resulted in great questions and learning experiences.  However, determining intent is very difficult when engaging in this type of process.

I understand the importance of this work.  I also know the importance of moving forward, learning from our experiences and seeking opportunities for improvement.  Following the continuous improvement process is what I preach and practice on a daily basis as part of my leadership and I am hopeful that this work will lead to productive results.

I will end where I started, with a thank you to the committee members for your work.  I know that you would have preferred not to be in this conversation but I do appreciate what you are doing to serve this community.  Thank you."

Committee/Board Member Patel's Statement at the 9/25/17 Committee Meeting:

Before we present our opinions on Dr. White's statement, we would like to also publish the statement Committee Member Patel read at the end of the meeting.  In her statement (which we have already published in our 9/24/17 Post) she said:  

"It is this committee member’s opinion that the most serious issue this report addresses is Dr. White’s failure to disclose informaiton in connection with the publication error, where information was kept from the BOE for an extended period of time. The findings by two committee members upon close review of district-provided documents, showing that Dr. White was in fact informed of the publication requirements by the BOE’s legal counsel dating back to August 19, 2016, was not only unexpected but disappointing. Dr. White had a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the accurate and timely publication of the election notice and he did not meet that responsibility. What is at issue here is that throughout the process, Dr. White has not been forthright in sharing this information with the BOE dating back to December 2016. There have been a multitude of opportunities to share this information through the litigation process, during Accountability Committee meetings and in the reports generated by the district in response to questions raised by the committee. At no point did Dr. White come forward with this information. This has resulted in a loss of trust in his leadership. The implications of this should be discussed by the full board."  (Source:  P. 3 of Draft Final Report)

Member Patel chose to read the statement she had provided for inclusion in the report AFTER Dr. White read his statement.  She did not explain why she chose to do so, but in our opinion, it is logical to conclude that she felt it necessary to emphasize that despite Dr. White's explanations, she has still lost trust in his leadership and that the full board must now discuss the implications of this loss of trust.

Our Opinion of Dr. White's Statement -- It does not pass muster!

So should the community or, for that matter, the Board of Education, accept Dr. White's explanations and do what he appears to be advocating for -- "moving forward, learning from our experiences and seeking opportunities for improvement?"  We think not.  Let's review his statement again, but this time, we will insert our conclusions after each section. Dr. White's statement will be in BLACK ITALICS this time, and our commentary in RED.

White:  "My statement this evening is not intended to be a point by point response to information found on Board Docs, nor is it intended to be a thorough response to the conclusions being drawn by members of this committee. Frankly, that activity would take much more time than we have this evening and would also need to include others.  In addition, I am trying to do my best to participate in a way that is productive so that we can fulfill what I thought was at the core of the work of this committee, that being to reflect on the past and develop recommendations for the future."

Bloggers:  Dr. White's statement is NOT his first response to the conclusions drawn by committee members.  Shortly after 2 of the committee members submitted their comments/questions/concerns on August 30, 2017, following their review of the August 9 documentation, he submitted a written "follow up"  to them in the form of a summary report dated September 4, 2017 entitled Committee Member Responses and Administrative Follow-Up.  Click to open 9/4 follow up.  As Ms. Patel pointed out in her statement, even in his written follow up to questions posed by committee members, he failed to disclose information to the Board or Committee.  He wrote a lengthy report but chose then not to respond point by point, despite having no time constraints to do so.  

Dr. White suggests that the "core of the work of this committee" is to "reflect on the past and develop recommendations for the future." How can he possibly expect the Board of Education to do so when his statements only tell part of the story?  Case in point, his representation of the purpose of the committee.  The litigation Settlement Agreement spells out the purpose of the committee's work. It states:

Objective:  The Committee's goals shall be objectively to:  (1) investigate any error(s) and/or omission(s) that may have occurred regarding the Bond Referendum; (2) to examine and make any recommendations regarding the District's past communications, actions, analysis and transparency with the community regarding the financial aspects of the bond referendum and construction of Hinsdale Middle School, including, but not limited to, the structure and costs of the bonds, the parking deck and any construction scope changes; and (3) to make any recommendations to the District, if approrpriate, to minimize the risk and cost of any future recurrence of the error(s) and/or omission(s) that may have occurred with the referendum.  (Source:  HMS Litigation Settlement Agreement)

The "core work" of the committee was not just reflection and recommendations for the future. Instead, the core work was to include INVESTIGATION of ANY error or omission that took place AND to make recommendations on HOW TO MINIMIZE the risk and cost of any future recurrence of the error(s).  

White:  "I would also like to add that I am not trying to be defiant in this response but I feel the need to at least express my point of view regarding the draft conclusions that are being discussed.  Next I would like to share that I do not believe it is the district's responsibility to monitor the work of outside entities, however, I am not attempting to minimize the importance of this situation and process for out district.  Nor am I attempting to diminish my responsibility for making sure that we do our best to learn from the past and make warranted improvements."

Bloggers:  In our opinion, Dr. White's statement believes that the purpose of the committee was simply to "learn from the past and make warranted improvements."  It is hard to understand what Dr. White  believes the "warranted improvements" should be by the Board in order to address his failure to follow the instructions given to him in the August 19, 2016 letter, his failure to disclose to the BOE the letter or that his failure to tell the Board that he could have prevented the publication error by the Dupage County Election Commission.  However, our read of the Committee's Objectives calls for minimizing a repeat occurence of such failures. In our opinion, there is only one way to minimize the risk, and that would be for the superintendent to be removed from his position and replaced with a leader that the Board can trust.

White:  "In a perfect world, the work of this committee would not have been necessary, however, we do not live in a perfect world.  People who know me best know that I am extremely reflective and I take time to, that I take my work very seriously.  As you can imagine, I have spent many hours reflecting on my work and considering the events that led us to this point.

My reflection has led me to conclude that I made a mistake when I relied on the DuPage County Election Commission to properly publish the referendum notification as required by law.  While I believe it was their responsibilityto complete that requirement, I completely understand why a conclusion is being made that the district could have been more proactive at that time.

The date in the letter from the DuPage County Election Commission did not trigger a response in my mind, nor I might add, in the minds of any other person that read the letter at that time.  I was mistakenly under the impression that the election commission would perform their duties as outlined in the resolution approved by the Board on August 12, 2017."

Bloggers:  Dr. White is right about one thing.  This is not a perfect world. But this is D181 where taxpayers, parents and students demand the highest quality of performance by the district's administrators, teachers and staffs. The residents of D181 pay very high property taxes to fund the very high salaries paid to D181's employees, and for that money, while we don't expect perfection, we also don't expect incompetence.  

We disagree with Dr. White that his "mistake" was relying on the election commission to properly publish the referendum notification and assuming that the October 3, 2016 letter did not inform him that they were about to publish outside the scope of the legally required window of time.  (Source of 10/3/16 letter:  Click and go to P.34 of the 8/9/2017 Summary: Legal Notice and Related Procedures

In our opinion, his "mistake" was two-fold.  His first mistake was in not following the instructions the BOE's attorney gave him in the August 19, 2016 letter, and to which he confirmed receipt and understanding of his responsibilities in the letter dated August 23, 2016.   (Source of 8/23/16 letter:  Click and go to P.26 of the 8/9/2017 Summary: Legal Notice and Related ProceduresIn both letters, he was told and acknowledged that he should ensure timely and accurate publication by the DuPage Election Commission.  He was NOT told to make any assumptions that the commission would not make any mistakes.  He was told to take action to ensure that there would not be a publication mistake.  Instead, he did nothing.  He disregarded the BOE's attorney's instructions, which in effect meant he ignored the BOE's instructions.  And this is not the first time he did this, since according to the Accountability Report, he also chose to ignore the BOE's instructions to have the appraiser complete the HMS appraisal, deciding on his own, not to do so.   (Source: P. 4 of Draft Final Report)

Dr. White's second mistake was not calling the Election Commission after receiving the October 3 letter that clearly stated the publication would begin that week.  He claims that the dates in this letter didn't trigger in him (or others) the need to change his assumption.  In our opinion, if true, this only shows his ineffectiveness as the leader of D181, a leader who should be able to recognize a potential conflict between the information given to him by the BOE's attorney and that contained in the Election Commission's letter and then take the necessary steps to address the conflict.  

It is mind boggling that he didn't flag this issue or the need to make a  simple phone call to the Election Commission to clarify when the notice was actually going to be published and to (as instructed by the attorney) ensure accurate and timely publication of the notice.  This isn't just a case of Dr. White deciding not to have a $7000 appraisal (paid for with taxpayer dollars) completed as directed by the BOE. This was about ensuring that a $53 million project would start off with no mistakes.  His "assumptions" and refusal to follow a simple instruction resulted in the complete derailment of, long delays with and additional $880,000 expenditures in the HMS project.  (Source: 9/25/17 ReportThe detriment to the district that resulted from Dr. White's mistakes leads us to conclude that he is not the right person to lead a district of D181's caliber.

Dr. White read the entire resolution and the publication timing requirements, which we have decided not to repeat here, but can be found at the following link:  HMS Referendum Resolution.  It should be noted that he appears to have made a mistake in stating the resolution was approved by the Board on August 12, 2017, because in fact it was approved on August 15, 2016 as documented on Board Docs.

Bloggers:  As we pointed out above, Dr. White's statement had "mistakes."  Considering that he was afforded a public platform to address the Committees concerns, you would think that he would have fact checked his statement.  Enough said.

White:  "I should also add that the Board's attorney opined that 'it is the opinion of legal counsel that the district followed the required procedures which are the responsibility of the district.' The Board's attorney added 'I also note that the information provided by the election commission that the newspaper publication of the election notice would be made beginning the week of October 3, 2016 did not put the district on notice that such a publication would be completed prior to October 8.'"

Bloggers:  Twice in his statement, Dr. White refers to the legal opinion of the Board's attorney that the district did nothing wrong in connection with the publication error.  First,  Dr. White asserts that the Board's attorney opined that the district followed all required procedures and the October 3rd letter did not put the district on notice that the commission was about to make a mistake.  He later claimed (see below) that he didn't bring the letters to the Board's attention because "given the legal opinion that the district has fulfilled its obligations, I saw no reason to conduct an archival collection and or analysis of any documents or processes until the work of this committee began."  In our opinion, his reliance on the legal opinion he quotes is disingenuous since it was given in an August 8, 2017 email from Hauser Izzo to Dr. White, nearly one full year after the law firm sent him the August 19, 2016 email and the Commission sent the October 3, 2016 letter.  The August 8, 2017 email was written in response to an email Dr. White sent Hauser Izzo on August 7, 2017 during the Committee's work.  As such, it is impossible for him to have relied on the opinion in this letter as a basis not to disclose the letters to the Board between August 19, 2016 and August 9, 2017 when they were finally produced along with over 1000 pages of documentation.  (Source of 8/7-8/17 letters:  http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/AQXE6938D83C/$file/2017_08_08_Izzo_Email_to_White_Section_4_no.4.pdf)  

The emails reveal that on August 7, 2017, Dr. White wrote to Mr. Izzo asking him to review "working drafts" of the August 9 report he was going to send to the Committee.  He stated "I want to be sure that we are not doing anything to jeopardize possible future litigation arguments that the board may pursue."  Up until the 9/25/17 regular board meeting, the BOE had been considering pursuing an action against the Dupage County Election Comission  During the meeting, the Board voted not to pursue such action against the commission.  Therefore, we believe that the possible litigation Dr. White was referring to in his email to Mr. Izzo was that against the commission.  

On August 8, Mr. Izzo emailed back with the language Dr. White quoted in his statement to the Committee. Mr. Izzo stated, "For the draft  report for Section 7, I expressly confirm that it is my opinion that the District followed the required procedures. I also note that the information provided by the Election Commission, that the newspaper publication of the election notice would be made “beginning the week of October 3, 2016” did not put the District on notice that such publicaton would be completed prior to October 8."

While Mr. Izzo did write the language that Dr. White quoted in his statement last night to the Committee, of significance is that this email was sent to Dr. White on August 8, 2017, 11 1/2 months AFTER the 8/9/16 email from Izzo to Dr. White and the 8/23/16 email back to Izzo,  10 months AFTER the 10/3/16 letter from the Election Commission, and 8 months after the bond counsel refused to sell the bonds after the publication error was discovered.   

If Mr. Izzo's opinion wasn't written until August 8, 2017, how could Dr. White claim that this legal opinion that the district had fulfilled its obligation was the reason he failed to disclose the 8/16 letters to the Board, or the fact that he could have prevented the Election Commission error by comparing those letters to the 10/3/16 letter or making a call to the commission?  Dr. White cannot possibly connect the dots of his past inaction to a legal opinion he received less than 2 months ago?

Thus, Dr. White's explanation must be completely discounted leaving him with no good explanation for his failure to disclose to the Board the existence of the letters or his failure to follow the instructions in the 8/19/16  at the time the publication error was discovered.

White:  Given the luxury of 20/20 vision, I wish I would have not assumed that the election commission was going to publish the referendum notice within the required timeline.  However, I made that assumption and did not think to check the date mentioned in the October 3, 2016 letter.  Instead, I went through what I thought at the time to be a thorough process.  Even though the election commission's letter stated that the office was fulfilling the obligation of publishing the notice of the referendum once in a local community newspaper, I could have checked the date that was outlined in the memo.  

Bloggers: Dr. White claims he went through what he thought at the time was a thorough process?  Just what did that thorough process entail, since he prefaced it by claiming that his only mistake was in making wrong assumptions abou the Election Commission?  Is "inaction" a thorough process?  Is making an assumption a thorough process?  Really?  We think not especially when inaction is exactly the opposite of what the Board's attorney told him to do.

White:  I have since learned that what we did at that time was very similar to practices of other entities that, we assumed, in that we assumed, that the election commission would properly fulfill its responsibilities.  I recognize that this does not dismiss my responsibilities on this matter.  

Bloggers:  Who cares what other entities did or if they similarly made "assumptions" about what the election commission would do or not do?  Did those other entities ignore directions from their Board's attorney?  Did those other entities ignore an instruction from their lawyers to ensure that the Election Commission publish the notice within the required window?  What other entities did is irrelevant to the fiduciary obligation Dr. White had to D181.   Those entities have nothing to do with D181 or the $53 million referendum that was at stake.

White:  Since the time of the last Bond Referendum and Accountability Review Committee meeting, I have been asked why I did not bring the letters from Mr. Izzo and the election commission to the attention of the Board sooner than August 9, 2017.  It is certainly a fair question, but it should be noted that I believe this question is being asked without the luxury of 20/20 hindsight and is void of the context of that moment in time. In addition, given the legal opinion that the district has fulfilled its obligations, I saw no reason to conduct an archival collection and or analysis of any documents or processes until the work of this committee began.

Bloggers:  In addition to claiming the legal opinion (as discussed above) was the reason why he didn't tell the Board about the letters until after the committee work had begun, Dr. White also states that  the question about why he failed to disclose the letters to the Board sooner than August 9, 2017 "is being asked without the luxury of 20/20 hindsight and is void of the context of that moment in time." We have already refuted his reliance on the legal opinion as justification for the failure to disclose.  In addition, what context is missing for anyone to understand this question?  The letters were clear  that he had an obligation to ensure that the election commission wouldn't make a mistake.  He confirmed his understanding and then when he received the letter from the  election commission letter that should have put him on notice that they were about to make a publication mistake, he still ignored the BOE's attorneys instructions.We are not sure what additional context Dr. White believes is missing, but if there is one, why didn't he explain it?

White:  "I want to also make it clear that I approached the work of collecting documents and providing a chronology for the August 9th response for this committee in an unbiased and factual manner.  In other words, I simply did a chronological review of the documents and emails in response to the request from this committee.  I did not do an analysis of documents prior to the formation of this committee nor during the process of collecting information for this work.  It was, and still is, my understanding that the responsibility of drawing conclusions is the work of this committee."

Bloggers: It is our opinion, that his reference to the "work of collecting documents and providing a chronology" "in an unbiased and factual manner" is his attempt to justify not having specifically flagged the 8/19 and 8/23/16 letters for the Committee or including a narrative explanation to the committee of what these letters actually said.  That might be believable if what he did was simply provide a chronology identifying the letters as "letters from Izzo to White dated 8/19/16" and "letter from Superintendent's office to Izzo dated 8/23/16.  In actuality, he did provide the committee with descriptions of the letters, and the descriptions misrepresented their content.  Specifically, the letters were described for the committee as follows in his 8/9/2017 submission to the committee:

"8/19/16 Izzo letter to White. John Izzo requested information related to the Board of Education approved bond resolution."
"9/23/16 Duggan letter to Izzo.  Jean responded to the 8/19/16 request for information from John Izzo."
(Source:   Click to read the Summary of the Referendum Notice Publication issue.  Pages 2 of the summary provides the descriptions of the August 9 and 23 letter/emails.)

How can Dr. White possibly describe these as a "chronology" presented in the 8/9 response to the Committee "in an unbiased and factual manner?"

There is NOTHING factually correct about the descriptions.  The first letter was a CHECKLIST and GAVE DR. WHITE INSTRUTIONS on what he should do to ensure timely and accurate publication by the Election Commission.  To describe the letter as a "request for information" is ludicrous, disingenuous and anything but factual.  It is, in our opinion, a clear misrepresentation of fact.

The same is true of the description of the 9/23/16 letter which was a confirmation of understanding of the checklist items Izzo had sent Dr. White.  It was not a response to a request for information.

White:  "To this point I would like to remind the commitee that I questioned who would be the authors of the reports to be published during this process and I made a public statement during the July 26th committee meeting related to this in that I sought clarification that the administration was not passing judgment and or taking any action on the conclusions or submissions of committee members.

Instead the adminisgtrations responsibility was only to compile the information received from the individual committee members.  I went on to state 'the administration will be more than happy to participate in the creation of the report, but we don't want the community to come back and criticize us for creating the report as directed.'

Bloggers:  In our opinion, we believe that this portion of Dr. White's comments  that it was not the administration's job to pass judgment or take any action on the conclusions or submisssions of committee members are an attempt to explain away the 17 times that he provided the following statement in response to the comments/questions of Member Patel and Member Burns:  

"No administrative response is necessary at this time as this seems to be a conclusion statement and not a request for additional information or a question."

We strongly disagree that the only role of the administration was to "compile the information received from the committee members."  If that were true, then why would Dr. White have provided responses to any of the Committee Members' questions. In our opinion, Dr. White selectively chose which comments/questions to address in a more substantive way than simply "compiling the comments."  The August 9, 2017 submission to the Committee was Dr. White's last chance to DIRECTLY INFORM the board and committee of the existence of the 8/2016 letters.  This required more than producing them in the midst of 1000+ pages and not describing the true nature of their content.  But for the close review of all 1000 pages of documents by Members Patel and Burns, NO ONE would know these letters existed because the members would not have flagged them. 

It was completely inappropriate, in our opinion, for Dr. White to quietly produce so many documents without bringing the 2 critical ones to the Committee's attention.  Was he waiting to see if they would be discovered by any one of the committee members?  Or was he hoping that they would not be?

White:  It has been stated by some that I have been misleading and less than transparent during this process.  Frankly, it never has been nor will it ever be my intent to mislead or to be anything but transparent in my work.  I attempted to provide an unbiased response to the committee's requests for information so that we could have an honest and open discussion related to the situation with the goal of fulfilling the objectives of the settlement agreement.  I have concluded, I am sorry, I have conducted many archival reviews during my career that have resulted in great questions and learning experiences.  However, determining intent is very difficult when engaging in this type of process.

Bloggers:  It is our opinion, that our analysis of Dr. White's statement and close review of the documents and legal opinion he refers to supports a conclusion  that he acted in a misleading and less than transparent fashion.   While he says this was not his intent and that determining intent from an archival review is very difficult, we disagree.  We will leave it to our readers to conclude for yourselves if the paper trail supports a finding of intent.

White:  I understand the importance of this work.  I also know the importance of moving forward, learning from our experiences and seeking opportunities for improvement.  Following the continuous improvement process is what I preach and practice on a daily basis as part of my leadership and I am hopeful that this work will lead to productive results.

I will end where I started, with a thank you to the committee members for your work.  I know that you would have preferred not to be in this conversation but I do appreciate what you are doing to serve this community.  Thank you."

Bloggers:  Our takeaway from Dr. White's wrap up to his statement is that he is reminding  the Committee (and the BOE) that he has always "preached" and "practiced" a continuous improvement process as part of his leadership and hopes that in this case, an opportunity for improvement will be afforded to him.  While we cannot speculate on what the full BOE will decide should be done to address Dr. White's mistakes and his failure to disclose the August 2016 letters and his inaction, we believe there is only one obvious outcome that will allow the district to "move forward."  Once trust is gone, there can be no effective collaboration between a Board of Education and the Superintendent.  If four or more board members have lost trust, then it is time to part ways.  

Conclusion:

The BOE took action during the Regular Board Meeting immediately following the Accountability Committee meeting.  It voted 4-2 to hire "outside legal counsel" to provide legal guidance on issues raised by the Accountability Committee.  

We live in a community of intelligent people.  It seems obvious that the "issues" that will be addressed with the outside legal counsel are "what to do about the superintendent."  We are glad that 4 board members voted to approve hiring outside legal counsel because the reality is that the relationship the BOE had with the Board's general counsel, the firm of Hauser Izzo, has been compromised.  That law firm failed to alert the Board (at any time) to the existence of the letter it sent Dr. White on August 19 2016, of the instructions it gave him in that letter, of his failure to follow the instructions, and then his failure to inform the board about any of that after the publication error was discovered by Bond Counsel and they refused to sell the referendum bonds in December 2016. The law firm sat quietly by during the first Accountability Committee in July 2017 and did not disclose this information.  Its silence was not in the best interest of the Board of Education or the district because without full information, the Board was tasked with making many referendum/litigation related decisions between December 2016 and June 2017.  Full information may have resulted in different outcomes, but the district will never know because both Dr. White and the law firm failed to provide full information on the publication error to the full Board of Education.  According to the documents published on Board Docs, the out of pocket expenses incurred as a result of the publication mistake were over $880,000. (Source: 9/25/17 Report) And that is just the monetary cost to the district. In addition, as we have stated before,  the publication error has created chaos and divisiveness in the community, not to mention a delayed opening for the new HMS.  To think that all of this could have been avoided had Dr. White followed the instuctions in the BOE's attorney's letter  or if the attorney had immediately alerted the BOE to Dr. White's failure to follow the instructions is beyond comprehension.  As a result, Hauser Izzo cannot now be involved in advising the Board on any issues arising from the Accountability Committee.  In order to protect the interests of the district, independent counsel needed to be hired.

Yet while 4 board members -- Burns, Patel,  Gray and Kleber -- voted to approve hiring outside legal counsel, 2 did not.  Members Giltner and Turek voted no.

While we do not know the exact reason why Turek voted no, he has publicly stated that he believes the work of the Committee (which he approved as part of the Settlement agreement) is a witch hunt in which he will not participate. (Counter 1:44:54 for Turek's public comments -- Podcast of 9/11 Committee meeting.) Similarly, Giltner's reasons are not known, although the community already knows that he did not submit any comments/questions to the administration after the administration's August 9 submission of documentation and information to the Committee.  So it seems fair to opine that he either didn't find the August 2016 letters during his work on the committee or if he did, he didn't think there was any issue with what they revealed.

We may never know why these 2 board members voted no, but in their refusal to approve hiring an outside legal counsel to help the full board address the serious issues, they have sent a message to the D181 community.  All board members have fiduciary obligations to the voters and all D181 residents to protect the interests of the district. It is truly a shame that not all board members fulfilled their obligations.*

With the hiring of outside legal counsel, the community must now sit back and wait to see if the Board takes future action on any "issues raised by the Accountability Committee."  So stay tuned and while we all wait, SOUND OFF!







_________________________________________________________________________________
*  The vote to hire outside legal counsel was 4-2.  Nathan Lucht was absent from this part of the meeting.  








7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know what the special board meeting is about tomorrow (October 23rd) is about. Only know about it because I decided to look on BoardDocs. Wish I had heard about it earlier, from the district! Looks like it’s a personnel issue. Could White be on the way out?

The Parents said...

8:09: We do not know, but we are hopeful that the BOE will be meeting to determine what action, if any, to take against Dr. White as a result of the findings of the accountability committee. As for him being "on the way out" only time will tell. We know what we believe the right course of action is, but we will leave it up to the BOE to prove to the community if he will be held accountable. If they do take any action, it will be interesting to see how each board member votes.

Anonymous said...

Check out the newest board packet which includes Administrator separation and settlement agreement..

Anonymous said...

Just listened to last night’s meeting. White is out at the end of the year. Lucht was absent, Turek and Giltner voted no, and the other 4 voted yes for the separation. They read a press release saying that it’s an “amicable” separation. FWIW, I’m torn on this. Dr. White made big mistakes, but this is the 5th superintendant in 10 years who has left. I’d like some consistency for a change!

Anonymous said...

Terribly short-sighted and punitive of 4 board members who found a shred of a reason to get rid of Dr. White. Where was the beloved "transparency" by these BOE members for the Real Reason they want White out, rather than pretending it was about a mistake with the referendum notice publication being a few days early - which happened in more than 1 school district. Are those Superintendents being thrown out as well? How much more damage will these 4 cause for our district? Who is going to want to work in D181 with the fear of being fired like this looming. How many tax dollars will this separation agreement cost us when Dr. White's contract was just recently renewed. The fault of the publication notice lies with the DuPage Election Commission and the chaos, delay and increased expenses of the lawsuit lies with the litigants.

Jill Kosmin said...

1 - Good leaders earn respect and employees don't want to leave - especially for parallel jobs. In a little over 2 years (March 2015-6/2017) the District saw a revolving door of 10-12 Central Office and Building Administrators (depending on who is included as turnover). This all happened on Dr. White's watch and under the FORMER BOE as the current BOE was not seated until 5/2017, by which time Mr. Sonntag and Ms. Gault had already decided to leave. Good leaders don't see that kind of turnover. They know how to hire the right people for the job and they show and earn respect that leads to people wanting to stay within the organization. Whoever thinks this separation with Dr. White is a vendetta by new Board Members who have not even been seated for a year don't understand what a good leader is.

2 - Good leaders don't lie - by omission or commission - to their superiors or their employees. The publication error wasn't simply a clerical thing. Not only did it take taxpayer dollars out of the schools to pay for legal fees, Dr. White lied about it when directly asked.

3 - Good leaders know they are ultimately responsible for all actions of their employees. Maybe a staff member should have caught the error, but ultimately Dr. White was responsible. He was negligent in not making sure appropriate procedures were set up so the error didn't happen. This District ran six referendum prior to this one - publication dates were never blown.

4 - Good leaders rise to the challenge. D181 is at the top of the food chain for salaries to administrators as well as many other tangible and intangible job perks. Superintendent talent is not going to avoid accepting a job here for fear of being fired. Good leaders will rise to the challenge. I hope the BOE does its due diligence well and finds a leader who knows how to lead.

Anonymous said...

Response to the 12:16 comment:
Are you kidding me? This board was "punitive" and "short sighted?" No way.
I commend this board for finally doing what should have been done last year: giving White his walking papers. A contract extension that was issued by the previous board is the last thing that should have happened based on the state of the district and the fact that several key administrators left because they weren't supported by White. We all know this, so get your head out of the sand.
Have you forgotten White gave Kurt Schneider (his favorite suck up) a promotion to oversee the learning department and the curriculum for the entire district? I haven't. I'm still working on cleaning up that mess with my kids and the holes they have in their math instruction.
So you'll excuse those of us who think the district will be better off without White in charge. My praise and accolades are for the 4 board members who took appropriate action.
District 181 needs real leadership, not a seat warmer.