Teresa Smith recently posted this comment that� was very resourceful and helpful as we continue to look at the situation in Perry Township and determine the best process and path to come out of it as well as possible.� I wanted to bring it to the forefront considering it’s length and breadth of the information provided.
Friendships in business! Everybody has friendships in business unless you are just socially inappropriate. If you can’t get along with others, then you get marked down on your performance review. However, if you get along well with others, then you have friendships thrown back in your face if somebody doesn’t like the person that people perceive as your friend.
Another business observation! When you do a lot of business with a service provider, they send you gifts. It is their way of saying thank you. It is not to bribe. They will invite you to golf outings. Now, you are immediately labeled as “golf buddies.” I have attended golf outings and didn’t even like the way a person on my foursome behaved. However, every time that we were in a meeting that person greeted me as their golf buddy. It isn’t always as it appears.
It is amazing how you can take any statement and/or an act of kindness and twist it to make a person look bad.
I have personally requested information from both Terry Rice and Bill Brown. They didn’t ask my loyalties (which at the time I didn’t have any.) I told them I was trying to find facts. They gave me information that I requested which was public information. They had it ready in a matter of hours. They were both extremely professional and extremely concerned about Perry Township.
Now many people will say, well their just concerned about their jobs — look in the mirror — wouln’t you be concerned about your job if this was going on in your corporation.
Mr. Nance’s position is very rational. You can’t say one thing one meeting — look at how it came across before the next meeting — and then turn around and back track the next meeting. The 4 women are extremely unprofessional. They look like little girls trying to play house. They don’t know what they are doing and overexaggerate which further emphasizes their inexperience.
They pull out insignificant facts and throw them out. For example, Mrs. Walsh’s fact finding that Doug Williams played golf with a well respected firm in the building community. So, let’s go through the process again. The end result is it will delay the project and inconvenience the teachers and the students. Then, my prediction is at the end of the exercise, they will pick some immaterial item and switch firms and exaggerate their finding. In the process, they will give bad PR to the firm. All of this to support what they are doing.
Why didn’t Dr. Williams write a letter directly to the board? — Answer — his attorneys advised him not to. The letter that was read was written by his attorneys. If you are not familiar with the process, the attorney sends the letter to the client for review and approval of submission. It is a letter from Dr. Williams — it just has to be sent through his representave — his attorney.
In my opinion, the four women have just been advised from their attorney that they have no grounds to proceed with termination. The attorney has advised them that he can’t help. Now, they are going for a second opinion.
I would like for the women to have John Bailey speak for himself at the next school board meeting. I have personally observed Susan Adams taking information from a committee meeting and reporting it inaccurately. She was challenged on her report from Mr. Maples and Mr. Nichols agreed with Mr. Maples. So, what did John Bailey really advise? Let’s get his professional legal opinion straight from him.
Susan Adams stated that Dr. Williams had lost her trust. They have lost our trust, but unfortunately, we can’t put them on leave.
I find it amazing that all four of the women’s comments were praising teachers. Isn’t it ironic thay they are all on the “same page” and their closing comments were the same topic!
I urge all teachers, administrators, and orange people (of which I am one) to do the following: do not let them suck you in emotionally when they are acting so ridiculous. That is their game. They have had a life time of practice at being “drama queens.” I have done a lot of fact finding and questioning about the women. Many of their personal sources said that they have a history of this type of behavior. The majority of people that I have met in this process are not like nor act like they do. So, we react because we can’t believe the things that they say and do.
They look bad when they do it. However, if we get sucked in, we look bad, too. We are better than that. Warn new comers that it is easy to get sucked in by the ridiculous behavior.
I thought the speakers did an excellent job at the close of the meeting. They represented us well!!! Thank you for getting up and supporting the cause.
Ruby Alexander is wrong. This isn’t about Dr. Williams. It started out about Dr. Williams, but it has escalated into something far greater. We know that there are many people who can fill the role of superintendent. It is our right to think that we have the best superintendent for our school system — we are entitled to our opinion. It isn’t about one person. It is about stopping destructive behavior. We are Perry Township citizens. We have 4 women who have taken matters into their own hands. They are holidng our township schools hostage. They are preventing our business of education from functioning in what is already tough educational times. They threw out and continue to throw out peoples’ rights. They abuse their power and demean employees of the township. They continually report incorrect facts. They say one thing one meeting and then turn 180 degrees and say another thing the next meeting. They are so cowardly that they use technicalities to not listen to their citizens. So, orange people we have become — not by choice — not by want — but by desparation to TAKE BACK PERRY SCHOOLS.
Teresa,
I have read your post regarding business friends, gifts and information and could not agree with you more. Your business observation and analysis was right on! Our current board leadership lacks the ability to look at and analyze critical business information without some personal or emotional bias. As you stated, while this started out being about Dr. Williams, that issue has become the catalyst to much greater problems with these board members.
After reading your posting, I was reminded of a recent article I read in The Indianapolis Star written about Gary Coons, the Perry Township Trusetee. In the article Mr. Coons makes a powerful statement regarding his position as an elected official. He states: “You have to be a good steward to the taxpayers, and you’ve got to be a good steward to your employees”.
By their actions, 4 members of the Perry Township School Board have shown that they do not posses the knowledge, foresight or willingness to be good elected stewards to the taxpayers they represent nor to the employees they serve.
If you desire to have good stewards serve the taxpayers of Perry Township, please join the efforts to TAKE BACK PERRY SCHOOLS!
Teresa,
Your post is exactly what I have been wanting to say, but couldn’t put into words!
I hope you have sent this out to the newspapers and to the board members! Thank you for your elequent words!
At the end of the day teachers will teach, children will learn, but the money spent irresponsibility to pay someone not to work and hire a 3rd attorney (no doubt at $250 an hour) cannot be replaced and must come from somewhere in the budget provided by every tax payer in Perry Township.
Great job of keeping us focused!
Newcomers, take heed! These women are the sorts of destructive, imcompetent things that have happened to our schools while we as voters chose not to watch!
Awful things happened to our PT schools in the 80’s, and worse things are happening now! So, young parents, keep guard –always! I hope we aren’t witnessing a cycle for our community!
All of us must take advantage of being informed and then voting! Indeed, we are witnessing one of the very best examples of why.
Oh, yes! How about sending this post to all of the board members? How about as a letter to the ed. of the Star. Spotlight, and SS Times? How about Indy Forum at the Star?
Teresa,
Very well written and to the point! I have friendly relationships with business associates, we may go to lunch or dinner or even to a Colts game. This is what business professionals do. I do not expect preferential treatment, but, I appreciate the opportunities available to me. I would never scheme, backstab, slander, or do anything unethical to gain an unfair business advantage.
Mrs. Adams presented Mr. Bourgmann’s contract extention to the board as a renewal of the existing contract and it passed 7-0. In reality it was a revised contract to removed Mr. Bourgmann as the board’s attorney (this was not disclosed to Maple, Houchin, or Buffie until after the fact). Mrs. Adams submitted one name to the board for consideration as board attorney, Mr. Bailey. When Mr. Maple questioned Mrs. Adams if she were hiring Mr. Bailey to terminate Dr. Williams? Mrs. Adams dismissed that as a rumor! Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Walsh, Mrs. Alexander and Mrs. Thompson approve the hiring of Mr. Bailey. Mrs. Adams and Mrs Walsh met the very next day with Mr. Bailey to discuss the removal of Dr Williams as Superintendent. I can’t help but wonder if Mrs. Adams or Mrs. Walsh had a prior relationship with Mr. Bailey, either friendly or professional. For a person to use their position of authority to remove a competent professional (Mr. Bourgmann), so they can hire someone with whom they have a prior relationship (Mr. Bailey), at nearly 3x’s the salary, is what I would consider a conflict of interest, a breach of their elected position, and possibly having criminal implications.
[QUOTE]
“Mrs. Adams presented Mr. Bourgmann’s contract extention to the board as a renewal of the existing contract and it passed 7-0. In reality it was a revised contract to removed Mr. Bourgmann as the board’s attorney (this was not disclosed to Maple, Houchin, or Buffie until after the fact).”
[/QUOTE]
According to the minutes, a copy of the revised contract was in the ‘Friday’ packet with no mention of the changes. What did not happen was any heads up about changes made to that contract. Apparently the 3 minority members did not read the contract because they didn’t think they needed to. Comments were made about not reading the contract by Walsh and Alexander.
Here’s the details in the 10/23/06 minutes:
“Mrs. Walsh commented that as Board Vice-President, she and Mrs. Adams met with Dr. Williams and one of the topics of discussion was what Lou Borgmann could offer the Board. She explained that Dr. Williams stated that school law was not Mr. Borgmann’s specialty and that it was within our rights to hire a Board attorney. She stated that it was at that time that Mr. Borgmann’s contract was redefined and she noted that each Board member was given a copy of the redefined contract with the August 14th Board meeting agenda. Mrs. Adams stated that Board discussions regarding such items as hiring an attorney must be done in a public meeting and that it is illegal to discuss them in an Executive Session. Mrs. Buffie commented that just as Mr. Oldham highlighted the changes to the Edison contract, the changes to Mr. Borgmann’s contract should have been presented to Board members prior to the August 14th Board vote. She added that in the future it is crucial that proper protocol be followed when a significant change is being voted on. Mrs. Adams assured her that future items would be handled differently. Mrs. Buffie stated that she has no issue with Mr. Bailey, but will choose to abstain from voting because of her previously stated issues. Mrs. Walsh and Mrs. Alexander commented that the necessary information was included in the Friday Packet and encouraged fellow Board members to inquire when questions arise.”
Owen, I know Mr. Bailey has worked with the Decatur School Board in the past(I found this by searching on the net) and I find it kind of ironic that one of Susan Adams fellow members on the Decatur Change Team was a Nancy Bailey. Huh-
wonder if they were related????
http://www.indiana.edu/~syschang/decatur/leadership_team04/index.html
Let me clarify my last statement. I remember seeing something online about John Bailey doing something with the Decatur School Board. But now that I go back and try to specifically find it I can’t, so you might want to strike that.
August 14,2006 Board Meeting:
RENEWAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY CONTRACT
Dr. H. Douglas Williams, Superintendent, requested approval of renewal of a contract with Mr. Louis H. Borgmann to serve as the School District’s Attorney. Mrs. Houchin moved for approval of the contract. Mr. Maple seconded and the motion passed 7/0. A copy of the contract is included with these minutes.
October 9, 2006:
APPROVAL OF BOARD ATTORNEY
Susan Adams, Board of Education President, explained that the Board does not presently have an attorney and asked Board members to approve the hiring of Attorney John Bailey for this role. Mrs. Walsh made a motion to approve Mr. Bailey and Mrs. Thompson seconded. Mrs. Houchin stated that it was her understanding that the Board members would be discussing the possibility of changing Board attorneys and that that meeting never took place. She added that because Mr. Lou Borgmann had been the attorney for
number of years, she was opposed to the change. Mr. Maple commented that he disagreed with Mrs. Adams in that according to Mr. Borgmann’s contract, he feels the School Board currently has an attorney. He added that there is no doubt that Mr. Bailey is a good attorney, but given the fact that his fees will be a substantial amount of money, he feels it is an unwise move. Mrs. Buffie stated that the information regarding the renewing of Mr. Borgmann’s contract as the School District Attorney as opposed to the School Board Attorney was not properly communicated before the August 14 Board meeting. She asked for a discussion with the current Board members before making this decision. Mrs. Walsh asked Mrs. Adams that due to some of Mrs. Houchin’s concerns was there an urgency to approve an attorney. Mrs. Adams answered “yes” and then called for the vote. The motion failed by a 3/3/1 vote, with Mrs. Adams, Mrs. Alexander, and Mrs. Thompson voting in favor. Mrs. Buffie, Mrs. Houchin, and Mr. Maple voting against and Mrs. Walsh abstaining.
Quote:
“According to the minutes, a copy of the revised contract was in the ‘Friday’ packet with no mention of the changes. What did not happen was any heads up about changes made to that contract. Apparently the 3 minority members did not read the contract because they didn’t think they needed to. Comments were made about not reading the contract by Walsh and Alexander.”
Legal contracts can be tedious reading, Mrs. Adams presented Mr. Borgmann’s rectified contract as a renewal of an existing contract without modifications, when she knew she had made alterations. Protocal indicates she should have mentioned there were changes to the other board members.
Still I can’t help but wonder if Mrs. Adams or Mrs. Walsh had a prior relationship with Mr. Bailey, either friendly or professional. For a person to use their position of authority to remove a competent professional (Mr. Bourgmann), so they can hire someone with whom they have a prior relationship (Mr. Bailey), at nearly 3x’s the salary, is what I would consider a conflict of interest, a breach of their elected position, and possibly having criminal implications.