13 October 2016

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Ms. Heather Bennett, Board President
℅ Salt Lake City Board of Education
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Treatment of District Employees

Dear Ms. Bennett,

Many of us were disappointed with the outcome of Tuesday night’s 5-1 vote to uphold the unauthorized demotion of the District’s Chief Equity Officer, Dr. Kathleen Christy.[1] Following the meeting, a community leader gave me emails dated May 4, 2016,[2] wherein you and McKell Withers, Tiffany Sandberg and Kristi Swett are discussing Dr. Christy. In that exchange, you state:

“I don’t think she should sign correspondence PhD if she doesn’t have a doctorate…Discipline is      clearly warranted. I also question whether she can be effective in her current role given these breaches       of professional conduct”

Then Kristi Swett states:

“It’s unfortunate the actions of our Assistant Superintendent has put our district in an      awkward situation, with the disclosure of her questionable doctorate…I understand you are      continuing to investigate the doctorate process…should certainly be grounds for termination…”

Then Tiffany states:

“I am echoing Kristie’s thoughts…”

McKell Withers replies:

“The breaches of professional conduct are stunning.” [3]

BACKGROUND
In October 2015, McKell Withers who at the time was Superintendent, demoted Dr. Christy (African American) from Assistant Superintendent to Equity Plan Coordinator. He then elevated three Caucasian administrators and gave them the title of Chief with the rank of Associate Superintendent. [4]

Later that month, in response to an inquiry from me, the entire Board received an email from Business Administrator Janet Roberts advising us that Dr. Christy had a Masters degree and no Doctorate. [5]

In November of 2015, the community [6] and employees[7] alike protested the reorganization plan that was implemented without Board approval.

In December of 2015, I attended a community meeting where I heard people congratulate Dr. Christy incidental to having successfully defended her dissertation.

In January of 2016, the Board was presented with a revised plan of the District’s reorganization.[8]

“Dr. Withers presented the representative group of Equity Leadership Team and SLASA Board Members with a revised reorganization chart identifying four positions that directly report to the   Superintendent:
Assistant Superintendent (Kathleen Christy)
Chief Academic Officer (Barbara Kuehl)
Chief Improvement Officer (Brian Conley)
Chief Operations Officer (Larry Madden)

To date, some concerns regarding the reorganization have been addressed. Dr. Christy has been  added to the Superintendency as an equal assignment as the Chief Officers and responsibilities have been divided to reflect a balance in leadership, accountability, and authority. Concerns remain      regarding transparency, collaboration, and equity in access to district-level leadership positions for all  qualified district administrators…”  [9]

In February 2016, the Board issued a letter titled BOARD SUPPORT FOR EQUITY PRIOITIES:

“The Salt Lake City School District Board of Education recognizes that it serves a diverse   population: 56.9% of public school students in Salt Lake City identify as members of an ethnic or racial minority group. We acknowledge the need for more diversity among support staff,         teachers, and administrators….” [10]

In May of 2016, this “Dr.” accusation was first reported to the Board. We were told that an investigation would commence and the findings of the investigation would be brought back to the Board.

In reviewing my calendar, I see that the Board met on May 3, 2016. The minutes of the meeting show that the Board went into a closed meeting to discuss Character, Professional Competence…. It appears that I left the closed door meeting before it was over. [11] In all probability because someone was leveling false accusations against someone else as is the custom of those that run this District. Nevertheless, the day following that Board meeting it appears Board members were looking into the same issue. Clearly, we handle information differently; while you and your cohorts were exacting judgments on Dr. Christy and giving McKell commands to destroy her career via email,[12] I was up at the University of Utah learning the process that one goes through in order to earn a Doctorate degree. I discovered that there was the program phase and the dissertation phase. The typical phases of the program were as follows: Ph.D. Student, Ph.D. Candidate and then a Ph.D.

I also learned that upon a successful dissertation defense, it was common to refer to the student, as “Dr.” This is even before the student had submitted their final dissertation (already successfully defended) and before they had obtained their degree.

I thought nothing more of the accusation and had every confidence that I would share this information with fellow Board members if this issue came back to the Board. I foolishly thought that an investigation by District personnel would come to the same conclusion I had and recognize this as a non-issue. What I learned at the U matched the actions of Dr. Christy over the past few months.

In June 2016, on his last day on the job, McKell Withers once again demoted Dr. Christy. I suppose in anticipation of the Board conducting the meeting this past Tuesday in an open session, community leaders distributed a number of documents to those in the audience. One such document was a June 30, 2016, letter from McKell Withers to Dr. Christy:

            “…It is untenable that the district allow its licensed educators such as yourself who are statutorily mandated to be a role models for students, to falsify their credentials and perpetuate an appearance of    impropriety…use of titles and credentials for which you have not completed the process is not      acceptable until the granting institution awarded the degree and is…” [13]

In July 2016, the majority of the Board along with the community was shocked when we learned that McKell Withers demoted Dr. Christy as his final act as Superintendent. [14] I now realize that three of my fellow Board members were pretending to be equally shocked.

You, Ms. Sandberg, and Ms. Swett clearly didn’t see a need to come clean to the rest of the Board and tell us that Dr. Christy’s demotion was your own doing? More importantly, the findings of an investigation into Dr. Christy’s use of the title “Dr.” should have come back to the Board for our consideration. Dr. Christy has the rank of Associate Superintendent and in our District, that makes her a “direct report to the Board.”[15] As such, it was within the purview of the entire Board to weigh the findings of an investigation and approve a demotion if it was warranted. Clearly, taking this circuitous route back to the Board was done with the hope that the charges, investigation, and findings from the hearing would be so fractured and convoluted that the Board could not properly deliberate on the issue. To your credit, it worked.

At the July 5^th Board meeting, members of the community spoke against this unauthorized demotion (second time). The Tribune reported the following:

“The chairman of the Utah Republican Party joined the state NAACP leader and a           prominent Latino advocate Tuesday in criticizing Salt Lake City schools for taking what they            characterized as a misstep for civil rights. The trio spoke against recent changes in district     administration at the school board’s Tuesday evening meeting…

            Last week’s reassignment for the district’s main equity and diversity officer, Utah GOP Chairman             James Evans said, demonstrates that the treatment of minority and low ­income students is not a priority for district officials…” [16]

In that same meeting, NAACP President stated:

            “Making organizational changes at the midnight hour when you think no one is looking is the old way         of doing business. This is a new day, we have a new Superintendent, I admonish the new       Superintendent to leave the old dark ways behind and instead follow the recommendations and            wisdom of these young people, make organizational changes within the context of “Transparency and    collaboration…” as that allows for “establishing a trusting relationship between the School Board,    Superintendent, educational leaders, teachers, parents, students, and community leaders” [17]

Later that month the Tribune editorial board, not aware that three school board members initiated this scheme, stated the following:

“The week before — while nobody, including members of the school board, was looking — outgoing Superintendent McKell Withers rearranged his administrative box chart in such a way that the district official in charge of equity and diversity was kicked down a rung in official stature.” [18]

Due to your duplicitous nature, it should surprise no one that you made no effort to divulge the fact that you and two other Board members cleverly instigated the scheme to demote Dr. Christy.

The Tribune editorial board was correct when they declared:

“But to rearrange the lines of responsibility on the district’s administrative flow chart is not a  private  personnel decision. It is a policy choice, one that should have been more openly vetted, at least among board members…” [19]

In October 2016, The Board meeting on Tuesday night was held under a false pretense. [20] Not only was it held under false pretense, the Board was purposefully denied the transcript of the hearing and all of the exhibits associated with it. [21] We were only given a copy of the hearing officer’s determination wherein he engaged hyperbole in his recitation of the facts, he was extremely subjective in his characterizations, and he leveled numerous personal attacks. [22] I actually received more insights into the circumstances surrounding this demotion from documents that members of the community read while the Board was sequestered in the close door meeting.

WITHERS DOCTRATE TIMELINE
In December of 2002, the Deseret News reported the following:

“The Salt Lake City Board of Education has picked the new district superintendent of Salt Lake    City schools, McKell Withers, out of the ranks of neighboring Granite School District. Withers received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Utah and completes a doctorate      degree in educational leadership and policy from the university this year.” [23]

In May 2003, McKell Withers finishes his course work. [24]

In August 2003, the minutes of Board meetings begin to reference McKell Withers as “Dr.” [25]

In November 2003, the District puts out a press release referencing “Dr. McKell Withers.”[26] I have multiple examples of McKell using “Dr.” prior to him receiving his degree and prior to the time that he successfully defended his dissertation. For purposes of this correspondence, I have included the minutes to Board meetings and the press release.

In April 2004, McKell Withers successfully defends his dissertation [27]

In July 2005, McKell Withers Dissertation is accepted in its final form [28]

In December 2005, McKell Withers awarded his Doctorate of Education Degree [29]

The minutes of Board meetings of that time also show that “Kristi Deveraux Swett” was serving as a member of the Board during this timeframe. [30] How is it that Kristi Swett didn’t claim that McKell Withers “put our district in an awkward situation, with the disclosure of [his] questionable doctorate…? [31] Moreover, I have numerous documents where it appears that McKell used the title “Dr.” even before he successfully defended his dissertation.[32]

Yet, when Dr. Christy follows the common practice of using the title “Dr.” following the successful defense of her dissertation, Ms. Swett declares that it “…should certainly be grounds for termination.” [33]

In hypocritical fashion, McKell Withers labels Dr. Christy’s actions “breaches of professional conduct” that he has the nerve to label as “stunning.” [34]

CONCLUSION
What I find “stunning” is that what I initially called a “rigged due process” [35] (for Dr. Christy) was even more insidious than what even I thought. This is yet another example where you have abdicated the authority of the Board and set in motion a very destructive path that inhibits this District’s ability to address the needs of our ethnic minority students (60% of the student body).

Why do you and McKell Withers believe that it is okay to hold Dr. Christy to a standard that is contrary to the custom of the day? How do you and McKell Withers think it is okay to hold Dr. Christy to a standard that not even McKell himself came close to abiding?

I of course recognize that you operate under the conditions of something akin to a moral inversion; you and McKell are blind to the injuries that the two of you have inflicted on employees of this District over the years. I would characterize what the two of you have organizationally orchestrated within this school district as EVIL:

 “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on  your behalf.” [36]

I of course recognize your reluctance to acknowledge the administrative evil you have created and perpetuated within the Salt Lake City School District.  Your ethical blindness service to reinforce administrative evil’s continued influence and increases the possibility of future acts of dehumanization and destruction as long as you are here to lead the charge. The manner in which you orchestrated the demotion of Dr. Christy has shocked the conscious of all who witnessed this saga unfold. To be sure, only the likes of Wormwood would admire your handiwork. [37]

Whether you realize it or not, your acts of intrigue have a negative reverberating effect on the self-esteem of the educators within this District. They all must ask themselves: “Am I next?”

Only something akin to a democracy in action that allows for a deliberative process will change this organization. Since you have sabotaged any possibility of deliberations in Board meetings, this District’s only hope is that the citizens rise up and vote you out of office. Which is the one silver lining to the Board’s Tuesday night vote; it incentivized people to find out which members of the Board are up for re-election this month.[38] Someone mentioned that your opponent, Jason Stevenson, was just down the street from the District offices in the midst of a fundraiser hosted by Mayor Biskupski. In a flash, over half of the people left the building and quickly made their way to the fundraiser so that they could contribute to Jason’s campaign. That’s what I love about America!

I submit that the next 30 days are pivotal for this school district. I predict the critical and active citizenship we have seen at our last two Board meetings will continue to crescendo until the Board is restored to a place where a viable and deliberative democracy can be exercised.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2
Enclosures

cc:
President Wayne Niederhauser, Senate
Speaker Greg Hughes, House of Representatives
Senator Escamill
Representative Romero
Representative Hollins
Mr. John Dougall, State Auditor
Ms. Rickie McCandless, Mayor’s Designee on the Board
Ms. Susan McFarland, President –Salt Lake Education Association (SLEA)
Mr. Jared Wright, President – Salt Lake Association of School Administrators (SLASA)
Mrs. Teresa Organista, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate –District 1
Mr. Jason Stevenson, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate –District 5
Mr. Ryan Pleune, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate – District 7
Salt Lake City School District Equity Leadership Team
Salt Lake City Board of Education
Tribune Editorial Board

VP Sandberg – Pres Bennett – Sup Withers

Ms. Josie Valdez & Dr. Forrest Crawford

TEXT OF LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT:

12 December 2015

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Dr. McKell Withers, Superintendent
℅ Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104

Re: Equity Leadership Team Meeting

Dear Dr. Withers,

You will recall, that at the last Board meeting, I asked if you were going to respond to the concerns of the community, in reference to your District reorganization plan. You replied:

“…there is no avoiding it, I’d be happy to meet with any group” [1]

To that end, I have been asked my members of the community, to reach out to you and request that you attend the Equity Leadership Team meeting scheduled for this Tuesday, December 15, 2015. We are aware that you held several meetings with members of the Equity Leadership Team. Unfortunately, you excluded the community members of the Team. I can’t stress enough, this botched reorganization plan and its subsequent implementation is of paramount concern to the community and employees of the District. In my opinion, this issue should come before the entire Equity Leadership Team and you should not be excluding the community component of the Team.

Additionally, I would request that you address the so called “misinformation” about your plan, which is supposedly floating around out there. In the last Board meeting, in response to my question about your actions, you replied:

   “Clearly, people have been given misinformation and that has been leveraged negatively” [2]

As one who has been elected to represent the interest of the citizens in Salt Lake City, I can assure you that it is the naked display of your actions that is so detrimental, not some elusive spirit of befuddlement.

By way of illustration, your Public Information Officer released a statement that summarized a meeting you held with select members of the Equity Leadership Team and the Board of SLASA.

Those members consisted of the employees of the District. The employees voiced the following apprehensions:

• Those …concerns centered on how we as a district can better emphasize the importance of excellence in equity, and all equity issues, in our schools and our communities
• How the district can work to have the ethnic makeup of the district administration more closely reflect the diversity of our students
• Expressed concerns about the sustainability of Dr. Christy’s new role
• Concerned about using one-time funds for her [Dr. Christy] new position could lead to discontinuing the position after only one year, which could send the message to schools that equity issues were not a high priority for the district
• They said strengthening Dr. Christy’s job title would help school administrators realize the seriousness of her work and equity work in general.
• They voiced their concerns about the increased need for recruiting and retaining administrators of color in the highest levels of district leadership.
• There was disagreement over whether Dr. Withers proposed plan would be more beneficial to furthering the district’s equity goals than another structure
• Was there appropriate input from stakeholders on this particular plan [3]

Make no mistake, these concerns are valid and were put forward in response to words that came out of your mouth and straight into the ears of the administrators present. The first sentence of the letter states:

“The purpose of this memo is to summarize a meeting with Superintendent McKell Withers had with a group of educators last Friday.” [4]

I want to underscore, the opposition to your reorganization plan is based on the plan itself, NOT “misinformation” as you would have us believe.

In conclusion, I will remind you of a letter I presented to the Board of Education in the summer of 2014:

“On behalf of the residents and students that I represent, I am submitting this letter to express my support for the…creating of the position: Associate Superintendent of Educational Equity & Diversity.” [5]

This recommendation came from the Equity Leadership Team, at the time you were opposed to the idea. It does now appear that you are moving closer to accepting the need and reality for such a position. We look forward to discussing this further with you.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

Dr. Withers at the 11/17/15 Board Meeting

On 11/15/15, in violation of Policy I-10 & G-19, the Board of Education voted to support the Superintendent’s ALL WHITE Reorganization plan.

COPY OF LETTER I DISTRIBUTED IN THE BOARD MEETING: 

15 November 2015

DELIVERED: ELECTRONIC MAIL
Ms. Heather Bennett, President
℅ Salt Lake City School District (District)
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Agenda Items Request for November 17^th  

Dear Ms. Bennett,
I am pleased to see that you have acknowledged that the Superintendent’s reorganization scheme is indeed subject to Board approval.[1] I am however, disappointed that you did not allow a place on the agenda for the public to address the Board. I ask that you reconsider this decision and modify the agenda to allow for public input on this vital issue. It serves no one for you to continue to protect the Superintendent’s antics, please don’t lose sight of the fact that “the Board recognizes that public comments and suggestions are vital to its decision-making process.” [2]

I am also requesting that the Human Resources Report be removed from the consent section of the November 17^th agenda and instead placed in the action section so that it can be openly and publicly the subject of deliberation for the Board.[3]

Additionally, I am requesting that you re-issue a revised November 17^th agenda with the following additions:

ü  Board Policy I-10

ü  Board Policy G-19

ü  The Salt Lake Association of School Administrators (SLASA) Written Understanding 

BOARD POLICY & AGREEMENTS
Like fellow Board member Emery, [4] I too, am of the opinion that the McKell reorganization plan and the approval of new employment contracts need to be treated as separate issues. In other words, I believe that the Board must first consider and modify the three items listed above before we can consider the employment contract changes listed on the agenda for the 17^th of November.

Recognizing, “The board is empowered to make policy decisions for district schools. Board members act as trustees for the community; therefore, policies are often understood as expressions of the community’s aspirations for its public schools.” [5]

The manner in which Superintendent Withers implemented his restructuring plan is in violation of Board Policy I-10 [6] which in part states:

The district actively works to recruit, employ, support, and retain culturally and linguistically diverse and culturally competent administrative, instructional, and support personnel. Professional development shall be developed and provided on a continuing basis to identify and resolve problems associated with the student achievement gap and other inequities arising from disparities. The district shall also actively strive to have our teacher and administrator workforce reflect the diversity of its students and communities.

Additionally, in his haste to implement his restructure plan, he either forgot or ignored Board Policy G-19 [7] which in part states:

“The Board values diversity among… its employees…The District shall operate as an equal opportunity employer and will provide and safeguard the opportunity for all persons to seek, obtain, hold, and advance in employment within the district without discrimination…Employment decisions shall be based on job-related qualifications and competence.”
Based on the feedback I have received from members of the community and employees of the District, I am convinced that the language in these two policies are indeed, “…expressions of the community’s aspirations for its public schools”.[8]

Furthermore, on August 18, 2015, as the result of a GRAMA request that I submitted, [9] I obtained a copy of a recent Human Resources Department Audit. [10] While the audit pointed out a multitude of problems, I cite the following three that are relevant to the issue at hand:

• Diversity in hiring still poses great challenges for the district – the teacher and leader workforce does not reflect the diversity in the student population. 

• HR does not provide any support (resume screening, outreach or recruitment, etc.) for central office positions. Supervisors are on their own to find talented candidates to fill vacancies.

• HR needs to provide support when central office administrative vacancies occur…including helping to craft vacancy posting, screening of resumes, interviewing and selection support as needed.

The Superintendent’s recent appointments and subsequent premature, public announcement (prior to obtaining Board approval) underscores the problems described in the Human Resources Audit report. As already stated, his actions violate Board Policy I-10 and Board Policy G-19 and as you are aware:

Exceptions to a policy may be made by majority vote of board members in a duly authorized meeting. Each policy remains in force until altered or superseded by an action of the Board [11]

Accordingly, I am requesting that both of these policies be placed on the Agenda for November 17, 2015 for Board consideration.

SLASA WRITTEN UNDERSTANDING
On June 16, 2015, the Board approved changes to the Written Understanding with SLASA as well as 3% COLA, Steps and Lanes and a 16.28% District share of insurance increase. [12]

The SLASA Written Understanding,[13] in part, states the following:

The purpose of the Written Understanding between the Salt Lake Association of School Administrators (SLASA) and the Salt Lake City Board of Education (Board) …is to provide expectations, guidelines and procedures that reflect the goal of performing at a high level of integrity in all aspects of our professional work. The Written Understanding is intended to reflect our commitment to the collective good of students and the district.

DEFINITION

For purposes of representation, an administrator is a contract district employee paid on the administrators’ salary schedule.

The superintendent, business administrator, and associate superintendent are administrators, but negotiate their salaries and certain other benefits directly with the board. The only items in this agreement which apply to these employees are specifically identified.

RECOGNITION OF THE ASSOCIATION

The superintendent and the board recognize SLASA as the body to represent the administrators of the district. SLASA will be represented on district level committees. This recognition will continue as long as SLASA represents a majority of the district’s administrators.

POLICY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
It shall be the policy of the board that procedures in the following areas will be established in an agreement between SLASA and the superintendent:

I. Compensation

II. Retirement

III. Working Conditions

IV. Position Continuity

V. Work Schedule

VI. Accountability

VII. Professional Communication

VIII. Conventions and Professional Meetings

IX. Leave

X. Administrative Vacancies, Transfers and Rotations

XI. Performance and Evaluation

XII. Termination

I. COMPENSATION

B. Administrators are compensated according to board adopted salary schedule …

C. The district will fund contractually obligated increments in step and lane (see salary schedule). Salary, step and lane, and administrative pay will increase by a percentage equal to the cost of living allowance as agreed through negotiations.

II. RETIREMENT

A. Any administrator paid from the administrator’s salary schedule (including those positions whose salaries are set by the board) employed by the district…

B. Any administrator (including those positions whose salaries are set by the board) who retires according to the provisions of the Utah State Retirement System (URS) may ….

XI. PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION

Administrator means any individual, except the superintendent, the associate/assistant superintendents, and the business administrator, employed by the district who is paid on any administrative salary schedule, including administrators who are not required by the USOE to hold a professional certificate. It does not include those employed for less than three (3) hours per day or for less than half of a school year.

Here is the dilemma: The Superintendent has moved his new appointees from the “Board Adopted” Administrators Salary Schedule #8 to the “Board Adopted”  Superintendency Salary Schedule (in the past, has been referred to as Salary Schedule #4):

The “Board Adopted”, Administrators Salary Schedule #8 has six lanes and five steps:

That “Board Adopted” Superintendency Salary Schedule has three lanes and three steps:

The first problem you will note, there is no title of “Assistant Superintendent” in either of the “Board Adopted” Salary Schedules. You will also note that there is no such title of Chief School Improvement Officer, Chief Academic Officer or Chief Operations Officer in the “Board Adopted” Superintendency Salary Schedule.

The application of the “Board Adopted” Superintendency Salary Schedule is as follows: the Associate Superintendent position was recently vacated by Patrick Garcia. The Executive Director of Human Resources is Craig Ruesch. The CIO is the Chief Information Officer Sam Quantz and the Finance Director is Alan Kearsley. In response to my inquiry, on October 27, 2015 – I received an email from Business Administrator Janet Roberts, she inserted the Superintendent’s new appointees to the following slots on the Superintendency Salary Schedule:

1. Barbra Kuehl – Executive Director Lane
2. Brian Conley – CIO/Finance Director Lane
3. Larry Madden – CIO/Finance Director Lane

That initial email did not tell me what step they were placed in. After another email exchange, I still did not receive a straight answer. I was however, able to decipher the following:

1. Barbra Kuehl – Executive Director Lane – MASTERY Step
2. Brian Conley – CIO/Finance Director Lane – MASTERY Step
3. Larry Madden – CIO/Finance Director Lane – MASTERY Step

If Superintendent Withers can make up titles that don’t appear on one of the “Board Adopted” salary schedules, then why negotiate and then enter into an agreement with SLASA about compensation for Administrators?

If Business Administrator Janet Roberts can superimpose employees into the “Board Adopted” salary schedule on top of positions of employment that is not really theirs, then why negotiate and then enter into an agreement with SLASA?

It is accurate to state that the Superintendent can make appointments to positions in the District. Those appointments are then subject to Board approval. However, on June 16, 2015, the Board entered into an agreement with SLASA:

“Administrators are compensated according to board adopted salary schedule …” and “…the district will fund contractually obligated increments in step and lane (see salary schedule)”.

Under the new state mandated administrator’s evaluation program we are told:

“any advancement on an adopted wage or salary schedule shall be based primarily on an evaluation…” [14] Compensation is based on “adopted…salary schedule”.

As a member of the Board of Education, when I “review and approve recommended…salary schedules…for District employees…” [15] I have every expectation that the Salary Schedule will be applied to those that earned the positions that are listed on its face. I had no idea that the Superintendent and Business Administrator would try to artificially insert people into a “Board Adopted” salary schedule. Consider the following:

“The board holds the superintendent responsible for administering its policies, executing board decisions… The board expects the business administrator to discharge…her statutory duties and to keep accurate records of all district revenues and expenditures…” [16]

To “keep accurate records” means that if the Superintendent and Board Business Administrator want to create new positions in the organization, then “the board expects the superintendent to …consult with and inform the board about school operations…in timely, accurate, and appropriate ways” [17] Informing the Board about his reorganization plan in the last ten minutes of a closed door session does not constitute “timely, accurate, and appropriate ways”.

Accordingly, I am asking that a new Salary Schedule be presented to SLASA for their negotiation and agreement and then presented to the Board for our approval. 

SHARED GOVERNANCE
Another aspect to this latest fiasco, is the Superintendent’s total disregard and disrespect for the tenants of Shared Governance. Referring back to the Public Information Officer’s Memo,[18] we are told the following:

• The Superintendent said the reorganization plan is still a work in progress, and he would be open to recommendations.

Really? I did not witness the Superintendent utilize any principles associated with Shared Governance as he clumsily implemented his restructure plan. Consider the following:

Shared governance is an effective method for making decisions.[19] It is most effective when all participants have a thorough understanding of its structure and the following basic principles:

• Delegation;

• Openness, trust, and equity;

• Decision-making;

• Review and adjudication;

• Accountability; and

• Dialogue and communication.

Under shared governance, groups strive for consensus

v  Consensus is a collective opinion arrived at by a group whose members have listened carefully, communicated openly, been able to state their opposition to other members’ views, and sought and considered alternatives in a constructive problem-solving manner. All members, because they have had the opportunity to influence the decision, should understand and support it.

v  Consensus evolves from open discussions, until participants feel satisfied with their decision. Reaching consensus should be the goal in all councils and committees of the district.

v  Consensus does not mean one hundred percent agreement. Seldom will everyone be wholly satisfied with any decision. Consensus does require that all participants be able to accept and support a decision.

v  Consensus takes time, and decisions should not be rushed. When the process is effectively implemented, it provides the opportunity for compromise and precludes the unilateral, capricious, or arbitrary exercise of power.

Clearly, the Superintendent’s method of implementing his restructure plan did not “preclude the unilateral, capricious, or arbitrary exercise of power.”

You will note, that the concerns I have outline in this letter, are but echo’s of what the Board heard from members of the community at the November 3, 2015, Board meeting:

1. 1.        Ms. Josie Valdez: Neutralize or nullify the reorganization actions …We demand that the Board adhere to the policy stated in your own handbook…

2. 2.      Mr. Stanley Ellington: To reposition the Equity Department to a lower or less than position, will reduce its importance and we ask that it not be done…to reduce the Equity Department to a level below the level of the Chief of School Improvement will be perceived as a systematic act of dismantling the Equity Department…

1. 3.       Dr. Paula Smith: There are administrators of Color who have the education, the credentials, the experience and they deserve to be considered. The current appointment system is a form of Apartheid where advancement does not seem possible despite their qualifications.

Furthermore, I was not at all surprised to learn that administrators in the District had arrived at the same conclusions to those I was hearing in the community. The District administrators made the following points in a meeting called by the Superintendent: [20]

• Participants in the meeting expressed concerns about the sustainability of Ms. Christy’s new role.

• They were concerned that using one-time funds for her new position could lead to discontinuing the position after only one year, which could send a message to schools that equity issues were not a high priority for the district.

• They said strengthening Ms. Christy’s job title would help school administrators realize the seriousness of her work and equity work in general.

• They also voiced their concerns about the increased need for recruiting and retaining administrators of color in the highest levels of district leadership.

• There was disagreement over whether Dr. Withers’ proposed plan would be more beneficial to furthering the district’s equity goals than another structure.

• Was appropriate input from stakeholders on this particular plan?

We must not forget that, “the Salt Lake City School District Board of Education recognizes the importance of …community involvement in the educational process as a critical component of student success.” [21]

To that end, the Equity Leadership Team was formed which is composed of employees and members of the community. This group has met monthly, for the past year. Their stated purpose:

“As a member of the Equity Team, you will participate in a monthly professional learning community focusing on and being accountable for personal, professional and institutional engagement in equity work. We will meet to deepen our learning of educational inequities and how to eliminate them by having the courageous conversations that address them, and participating in reflective, equity driven exercises. We will use action research methodologies and equity audits to identify successful practices within our system and impact all students by building an equitable, quality education”.

This District-wide Shared Governance council has consistently voiced their concern that the resources in the Equity Department are so dismal, that it is not possible for that department to carry out their mission and stated goals. As a result of those discussions and observations, the recommendation was put forward to elevate the position of Equity Director to that of Associate Superintendent of Equity and Diversity, thus empowering that department with the authority needed to help schools improve the educational outcomes of our students.

The minutes to the June 3, 2014, Board meeting quote me as follows:

“He said he does not feel there is a lot of support district-wide and he supports the creation of a new position for an Associate Superintendent of Educational Equity & Diversity which would allow the district to support efforts district-wide, instead of patch work at individual sites. He distributed a letter and supplemental information stating his support and outlining how the idea for the position had developed.”

In light of the Boards stated policies and agreements, I have to ask myself:

1. How can Superintendent Withers be allowed to trample on established Board policies?

1. How can Superintendent Withers be allowed to implement a reorganization that violates our negotiated agreement with administrators?

1. How can Superintendent Withers be allowed to unilaterally make a decision that disregards the recommendation of an established District-wide Shared Governance council?

I predict that this District will not survive another eight months of this kind of foolishness. As a Board, we need to assume our leadership role more assertively and with greater dedication as guardians of educational excellence and equity. We need to compel Superintendent McKell Withers to respect and honor established Board policies and negotiated agreements!

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

cc: Ms. Josie Valdez
Dr. Paula Smith, University of Utah
Ms. Jeanette Williams, NAACP
Salt Lake City Board of Education
Senator Luz Escamilla, Utah Senate
Ms. Nubia Peña, Racially Just Utah
Ms. Anna Jane Arroyo, IMAGE de NU
Ms. Christine Marriot, SLASA President
Mr. Archie Archuleta, Utah Coalition of La Raza
Mr. Gregory Lucero, Utah Against Police Brutality
Salt Lake City School District, Equity Leadership Team
U.S. Department of Education – Office for Civil Rights
Representative Mark Wheatley, Utah House of Representatives
Representative Sandra Hollins, Utah House of Representatives
Representative Angela Romero, Utah House of Representatives

111515BENAGEpdf

Portion of Board Meeting: Michael & Superintendent (YouTube)

Board Votes (5-2) to Excluded Administrators of Color 11/17/15

Salt Lake City School District -Board of Education