I took some heat last night at a community meeting for comments I made late into last week's board meeting. Here is what I said:
"I was going to say to people who are speakers who come that I think we need new perspectives from public speakers, and I think we need reminders of things, issues that may have slipped off the agenda or out of our focus. I think we don’t need allegations of bad faith or intentional discrimination based on class, race or region of the county and you get no traction from me coming in alleging that staff or other board members are not doing their damndest to do a great job for all the kids in Loudoun County."
Someone was sitting in the audience who had come because he was very concerned about employment discrimination against minorities at LCPS. My comments were made some time after the conclusion of a presentation on the minority student achievement gap for the benefit of the local chapter of the NAACP. Most of the NAACP members had left by the time I made my comments, and the impression that this one man got was that I had waited until they were gone to target them.
In truth I was making a very broad comment, triggered more by a speaker on western Loudoun schools earlier in the evening (who was still sitting in the room) than at the NAACP who spoke nearly a month before. I do not recall the NAACP speakers alleging intentional discrimination, but if they had my response would be the same. This Administration and this Board are made up of people trying hard to do the right thing. They aren't perfect, and they can't do everything they wish to do. But starting with a recognition that we're all in this together, doing our best, is the best way to begin a discussion of how to solve a problem.
Now John, let me say up front that I do not reside in Loudoun and I was not privy to the conversation or criticisms aside from that which you've posted here. But I'm commenting because I always find it troubling when elected officials "stand up for their staff" by summarily dismissing the very possibility that one of them might occasionally exercise bad judgement or act inappropriately with regard to race.
ReplyDeleteIf a female employee made an allegation of sexual harrassment, would any administrator or public official in their right mind think it then appropriate to state in a public forum that 'they don't want to hear those types of complaints because their staff would never do such a thing'?
No offense John, but the attitude that discrimination complaints are universally without merit is a large part of the problem. It's one of the primary behaviors that enable racism by shielding discriminatory acts from scrutiny
Kevin, your points are well taken. Discrimination complaints often have merit, and I have no intention of shielding anyone from scrutiny. I am opening this up to find out how my words give the other impression, and welcome your comments.
ReplyDeleteHere is my response: I did not say that nobody would exercise bad judgment. Indeed we all do. Certainly most of us act inappropriately with regard to race at times, sometimes without even realizing it. Bias exists. But bias can be unintentional and character assaults do little to improve the situation.
I think your comparison to a harassment complaint is misplaced. If a female employee were to make an allegation of sexual harassment I would of course take it seriously, but I think you will concur that the podium of a public hearing would not be the place to make such an allegation and no presiding official in their right mind would allow it to be made there. There are processes for these complaints that protect the rights of the accuser and the accused.
Finally, an allegation of sexual harassment is the allegation of an incident towards an individual. It is to some degree provable and refutable. The speaker I was referring to (and others like her) refer to the entire Board and Administration with a broad, indiscriminate brush. There is no way for her to prove or for us to refute the allegations. It does nothing but sour the air. Even the man who complained to me about my words told me that when that woman started talking, he quickly tuned her out because she was so unpleasant.
Hello again John,
ReplyDeleteI'd be inclined to agree with you as far as the breach of protocol. However, that seems to be a different issue than the one you raised at the board table.
At the table you said "I think we don’t need allegations of bad faith or intentional discrimination based on class, race or region of the county and you get no traction from me coming in alleging that staff or other board members are not doing their damndest to do a great job for all the kids in Loudoun County." - I was moved to post only because to my ears that sounds like a blanket defense of all staff and board members.
However, if what you actually took exception to was the fact that the speaker should have sought a more appropriate forum, then that's a different story...
Thanks for continuing the conversation, Kevin. I think we're getting closer to each other here.
ReplyDeleteWhat you heard as "a blanket defense of all staff and board members", was just that, a blanket defense. I understand how that sounds like I was saying they are infallible. Perhaps that is where I need to be more precise.
In this case, it was a blanket defense in response to a speaker's blanket accusations. It would have been more precise of me to say that I will not listen to blanket accusations of this kind.
The forum isn't really the point, though it is a factor, because somebody making blanket accusations to me in private would get the same response. And while a specific complaint or allegation may or may not be appropriate in public, it is much more likely to be valid. I do hear and follow up on specific complaints on a regular basis. Sometimes they are valid, sometimes they aren't, but each deserves to be considered individually.
And I guess that's the bottom line. Each complaint should be considered individually, and the corollary is that effective complaints are directed carefully.
How does that sound to you?
Mr. Stevens, I have not received a response to my questions submitted directly to you earlier(and to your collegues in my statement last week), so I will ask you in this forum. What is LCPS doing to manage the continued overcrowding at Loudoun Valley High School? Why propose a more expensive 1,800 student HS-10 in Lovettsville when LCPS' staff have stated that facilities will be needed for 4500 more high school students (three 1,500 student high schools) at full build out? Why can't the lower portion of the Miller property (a cost-effective option in many regards) be used for HS/MS-10 school facilities when sports fields were shown on that same portion of the Miller site plan prepared for HS-3? Why is Milltown Road, a paved and striped road between Waterford and Lovettsville that is superior to Loyalty Rd, not even depicted on key maps prepared by LCPS? Why did Staff characterize the Miller property as not being on the market in July and currently not talking to Mr. Miller about negotiating on his property? Why are so many unprecedented conditions being imposed on the Town of Lovettsville to have HS-10 sited near it? Why have Staff said on several occasions that the Town of Lovettsville doesn't have sewer capacity to serve a school? These are NOT blanket accusations, they are very specific questions which so far you, my representative Mr. Nuzzaco and the Administration will not answer. Even though these questions are not directly related to your District, you have to understand these issues to make an informed decision when votes are cast.
ReplyDeleteSince I was the only speaker from the west and I spoke of inequities, I assume your comments were directed to me. Unfortunately I had to leave the Board meeting early last week but watched your statement and read comments you made about me on this blog. It is unfortunate that you indirectly insult citizens like myself and infer that they are justified to be tuned out because they come to the Board to seek resolution of issues that are of grave concern to them, albeit in a passionate manner you and others apparently view as "unpleasant". If you choose to ignore the facts I present because of my frustrated tone, that is unfortunate and a problem your constituents should be aware of - be nice or John won't listen to you. I don't know where you get the idea that I have specifically attacked anyone's character. I do think it is unrealistic to expect certain Staff to be completely objective about evaluating the Miller property because of its close proximity (1/4-mile) to their home. This is not an attack on their character at all, I am simply stating that the appearance of a conflict of interest exists and perhaps inappropriate for them to be placed in the position of evaluating HS-10 or perhaps even HS-3 sites. I absolutely don't believe the actions being taken are done out of malice for these children. I admit that I do not know the motivations behind what is happening. I honestly believe that Staff does it's damndest on many fronts and does a very good job indeed. The ones I have met with and spoken to are clearly good, hard-working people. However, with regard to HS-3, LCPS Administrators have made bad decisions in the past and mistakes guiding the Board in these matters. Just like we tell our children, it is OK to make mistakes, it is not OK to avoid the consequences however. I just am trying to say to you and your collegues that the end result of these mistakes is that children in the west are being subjected to measures implemented to manage overcrowding (e.g., intermediate schools and soon bussing) that are different than options provided to children in other regions of this County (e.g., new schools proposed like HS-6 and HS-7). That is the essence of the inequity I bring to your and your collegues' attention. You say you are learning, that is great, we should all always be open to taking in new information and ideas. However, you are in a position where people need you to make decisions, so when will you take that challenge and take a stand, one way or the other?
Sarah Stinger