Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Like many of you I’m sure, our power went out Friday afternoon. Thankfully, it was restored overnight. We’re off to Rhode Island today so I wanted to post what I could from my interview with board chairman Steve Anderson. This one will be in Q&A format. Here’s seven minutes of our lengthy discussion:

On the personal attacks directed at him:

“I think it’s unfortunate when they make it personal because you sit there and you’re in a volunteer job. You’ve got a tremendous passion and you’ve got a lot of emotion for the educational process. I care deeply about my three kids’ education. I care deeply about the 9,000 kids that go to school with them. A lot of the personal stuff is stuff that is removed from the decision making. I don’t understand where that comes from.”

On having his leadership as chairman questioned:

“Half the time you’re getting criticized for being too much of a leader and squelching dissent, and then two second later you’re being told by people that you’re not leading enough because the board is not under control. It might mean that you’re actually kind of about in the right spot of equal opportunity criticism. 

“Going forward I think I do need to be tougher in the leadership and really bring people on point and get away from a lot of the political grandstanding at board meetings that takes place. We’ve tended to get too minutia driven in a meeting and a lot of things like that really need to be taken care of outside of a meeting. Things that are not the big picture discussions that you want to have at a board level.”

On change and how it will be received:

“One of my goals between now and November when the new board comes on is to try and raise those conversations up. And to do that, like I said, probably means I need to become a little more uncivil as I argue for more civility. But tell people ’look, I’m going to be the bad guy.’

“I think [the community] wants to buy in because at the end of the day I think the community doesn’t want to feel they have to be this involved on the Board of Ed because the Board of Ed is doing what it’s supposed to do. Two years ago when I got elected chair I said my goal was to make us really boring and only talk about education, education, education. Well, we haven’t done that. We really need to get back to being boring.

On the November elections:

“You’ll have the two new Democrats coming on board assuming nobody petitions their way on. I know Jennifer (Dayton) and Adriana (Ospina). I think their hearts and their beliefs are 100 percent correctly aligned about education. I don’t know the detailed views of each but I think they’re people who really enjoy making the educational system better.

“On the Republican side, that’s still wide open. There are eight or nine possible candidates there and that will come out in July. What comes out of the caucus will say a lot about where the Republican Party is trying to go and what they’re trying to do.

“The board will definitely be different come November and then when that new board comes in that will be time to really get going on the superintendent search.”

On the “rubber stamp” accusations:

“I think that’s unfair. If you’re giving good guidance throughout the entire year to the superintendent and the cabinet, when the budget comes along there shouldn’t be any surprises because you’ve already directed the superintendent. The key is you want to be sitting there and articulating what you want to do and not just saying ‘well here’s problem ’X’ and I’m unhappy about it.’ Your role on the board is ‘here’s problem ’X', I think this might be a solution, what do you guys think?’ You need to come forth with the answers.

“When I first got on the board somebody told me that when you switch sides from the audience to behind the table the seats get softer but the decisions get harder. There are times when you just need to sit there and say ‘here’s a decision that I know is immediately going to make 40 percent of the people unhappy, but I think it’s the right decision for the schools.’ That gets back to make the decision and then get out and support that decision, push for it. Be a cheerleader for the public school system.

______________________________

I’ll be back Monday with more. In the meantime, tomorrow’s Greenwich Time will feature an exclusive interview with departing schools chief Sidney Freund. The paper will also run an in-depth story on the much-talked-about emails sent to Freund from two board members.

Comments(4)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Two weeks ago, when the Greenwich Board of Education held its first public meeting since the resignation of Superintendent of Schools Sidney Freund was announced, many turned out to voice their displeasure with the way the board was conducting its business. Using Freund’s resignation as a springboard, board members themselves spoke of the discord, the effects these internal conflicts were having, and what needed to be done to get back on track. You can bet board chairman Steve Anderson was listening.

“The biggest thing was the depth and reach into the community,” Anderson said in a recent interview with Teacher Talk. “You expect to hear from the “normal” parents, the people who are involved in the PTA, things like that. I think there were a number of other people that you heard from. The good news is the community cares very deeply about education in Greenwich. You need to respond to those concerns.”

The need to respond grew even greater this past week, with two front page stories in the Greenwich Time on consecutive days highlighting the political and philosophical differences that have divided the board. An article on Tuesday suggested that the chairman of the Republican Town Committee, Jim Campbell, has reservations about endorsing Marianna Ponns Cohen for this November’s election. Then, yesterday, a front-page article had board member Michael Bodson expressing outrage over what he called a 20-minute interrogation by Ponns Cohen of the nonprofit group Greenwich Alliance for Education at last Thursday’s board meeting. Clearly, these issues aren’t going away on their own. As a result, Anderson thinks it’s time to make major changes to the way the board operates.

“We really need to establish the civility, not just on the board but in the community dialogue,” he said. “To help establish that civility, the board needs a code of conduct, board expectations, board norms, just so it’s very clear what you should be doing. You should ask questions. You definitely should poke and probe and get to the right decision points with the right background. But there comes a point when we need to vote and move on to the next thing.”

Anyone who follows Greenwich education knows that hasn’t been happening. Anderson says these conflicts have been brewing for some time.

“I think it’s been turning for the last number of years,” he said. “I think it really came into focus about six months ago.

“When I first got on the board there was a policy that said once the vote is taken you will support the direction of the board. When Marianna Ponns Cohen came on she worked via the town attorney and said that was restricting her free speech rights. That was three and a half years ago or so. That kind of set the stage for a topic never being done.

“We don’t have agreement on the board on this, but I do think one of the roles of the board is to be the head cheerleader, not just the head decision maker. As soon as a decision is made, we’re supposed to be out there advocating for ‘X’, whether it’s the budget, whether it’s a new finance program, whether it’s the bowling team. We’ve got to get out there and sell what it is that we think has the support. When I first came on the board everybody said ’OK, I may agree or disagree but I’ll get out there and sell it.’ 

“I think what we see now is you have people actively working against the decision of the board, and that’s a tremendous time suck.  It eats at you emotionally because you’re never done. I understand the alternate point of view and I can get the rationale behind it. But at the end of the day, you sit there and say ‘how is this helping the school system.’”

Ultimately, Anderson believes a code of conduct will help the school system, and he says his role as board chairman will not only be pivotal in the development of such a policy, but also in its implementation.

“For the board to become more civil, it probably means I as chair need to become more uncivil,” he said. “I need to sit there and say ‘you’re out of line, I need you to pull back into the conversation. And if you persist, then I’ll put you out of order and take the microphone away from you.’ So to become more civil, I as a chair have to become more uncivil, in a dignified manner. That will be the interesting part.”

As for a timeline for developing a code of conduct, and what it might include, Anderson says it’s time to get to work.

“I want to work on it immediately,” he said. “I’ve already had some conversations with some elected town officials and some other community members just putting out my thoughts on should it come out really quick? Who should help us? It will be a board project but should we have input from the community?

“A couple of great sources are how does the BET conduct their business? How does the RTM conduct their business? How does the selectman’s office conduct their business? Go where things are functioning well and steal their ideas.

“I would like that to come out really soon. I’d love to see it before the school year ended. And probably right after that would be board expectations and board norms: You are expected to attend this many meetings. You are expected to hit this many expulsion hearings that you’re called to. When you’re put on a committee, here’s what your attendance should look like. It not only helps shape expectations, but going forward it also gives people who are looking to get into the business of education, or sitting on the board, what they can expect.”

Since Freund resigned, a lot’s been made of the dynamics of the town. Is Greenwich different than other towns when it comes to politics, public office, and even education? Anderson says what’s happening here is part of a larger national trend.

“We’ve seen this on the national scene,” he said. “Wherever you line up, there should be a pretty big tent that encompasses many things. You know your view is not always going to carry the day. You hope that the other side factors that into their decision making. You explain your rationale and you hope they understand it. It doesn’t mean they have to agree with it, but if they understand it then you get to a richer decision making process. It seems that there are more mini tents that have popped up nationally and now locally with regard to where people stand on topics and what that makes you within a particular party.”

Or, within a particular board.

Comments(3)

|

E-mail

|

Print

How’s this for political drama?

A little over a month before the party is scheduled to select candidates for the Board of Education, it’s still unclear who the Republican Town Committee will endorse for this November’s elections. Michael Bodson is not seeking re-election, and a report in the Greenwich Time today suggests that RTC Chairman Jim Campbell has reservations about endorsing board member Marianna Ponns Cohen. Last month, the Democrats endorsed Jennifer Dayton and Adriana Ospina to replace current board members Natalie Queen and Jonathan Cohen.

Certainly, the November elections will bring about change on the Board of Education. Which brings us to the current situation here in town, where Greenwich is once again in need of a superintendent of schools. How will the uncertain status of the board impact the process of finding a new schools chief? Not much, says board chairman Steve Anderson, who sat down recently for a lengthy interview with Teacher Talk.

Anderson says the ideal route would be to name an interim to fill the position for one year while a search is done to find a permanent successor to Sidney Freund, who will be leaving in August after announcing his resignation last month.

“The timing of the elections shouldn’t impact the permanent superintendent,” Anderson said. “I’d like to have the interim superintendent in place by the end of the school year or very shortly after that. That more than likely will be very specifically laid out to that person as ‘it’s a one school-year job. You’ve got a very strong team in place, rely heavily on them. You’re not bringing in anything new.’ I don’t want to say caretaker, but an interim is not going to be a change agent.”

Because of the timeline involved in hiring a superintendent, the new board should be in place by the time the search for a permanent successor begins.

“You usually start to gear up in the fall,” Anderson said. “That means interviewing search firms, putting a search firm in place. The winter is the big time and by that point the new board [will be] in place. I don’t see any board conflict. Realistically, I think you name a superintendent sometime in the spring, and by that point the new board [will have been] in for five months or so. Right off the bat that superintendent gets close to two years of the same board to work with. Hopefully, if have buy in at the board level, it stays the same for two years and you go forward from there.”

Anderson is clearly in favor of going the interim route given the complexities involved in hiring a permanent superintendent.

“You’re not going to find a deep pool of superintendents right now,” Anderson said. “Obviously it’s all up to the board, but my recommendation to the board is to take an interim.”

As far as who that person is, and where he or she comes from, that’s anyone’s guess at this point.

“We can certainly look externally. I’d like to look internally [as well],” Anderson said before expressing some concern about finding someone internally. “I am concerned internally about ripple effects because by the time you finish moving everybody around, all of the sudden a year’s gone and then you have to move everybody back around.

“I think we’ve got some qualified internal folks. I think we’ve got some qualified external folks. It will be down to the board saying ‘what kind of person do we want to put in’ and then support the heck out of them. If we found somebody internal that we felt fit the needs and could run the school system the way we’d like it run, that would be fantastic. You’re always going to go find the best candidate, but [internal candidates] are already out of the starting blocks in good shape.”

Anderson was clear when it came to the qualities he’s looking for in a permanent superintendent.

“Educator first and foremost,” he said.  ”Second, [someone who] comes in [and] spends the time to understand the community, collectively and community segments. 

“I don’t see a big change agent. I think a lot of the stuff we have in place needs to percolate a little bit.”

Immediately following Freund’s announcement, deep-seated conflicts within the board came to the surface. Anderson says the first step for the board is to work out its own issues.

“Frankly, I am worried that a potential superintendent will sit there and say ‘OK, have the board and the community rectified their issues? Have they acknowledged their issues and are they working towards making right?

“I think that is an added complexity we’ve got to deal with head on. There’s no way to scoop it under the carpet. We say, whether you’re the new interim or the new permanent, ‘here’s the steps the board has taken. The board has put in place a code of conduct, the board has put in place norms, the board has put in place expectations. And we think that that has now provided the right guardrails to the superintendent as we [say to the superintendent] ’here’s your goal. You figure out how to get there. Here’s your different guidelines for how to get there.’”

Easier said than done, of course, but Anderson believes it can happen.

“We’re not a perfect community. We’re also not an average community,” he said. “I do think that we should be better than other communities. I think when people buy into that and have the right set of expectations, that’s half the battle right there.”

The other half is keeping a superintendent in place for more than the two years that Freund was here, or the three years for Betty Sternberg, or four years for Larry Leverett. Seven schools chiefs in 11 years is a lot of turnover for a district.

“I can’t guarantee a job’s forever,” Anderson said, “but we’re looking for someone for five, seven, 20 years.”

Perhaps even three this time.