Source: Carmel Valley News 3-13-08
By Marsha Sutton
The resignation Feb. 26 of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Tom Bishop elicited the expected outcry from loyal supporters, but it should have come as no surprise to anyone paying close attention this past year.
When a board majority of devoted Bishop followers was replaced in November 2006 by three Bishop critics who ran as a slate, the die was cast. These three individuals — returning board member Annette Easton and newcomers Steven McDowell and Katherine White — were quite open about their agenda.
The prior board was weak and provided little oversight, they said repeatedly, resulting in a superintendent with too much unchecked power. They contended that bad decisions had been made, an alienating, autocratic management style was intimidating those who dared to question, unhealthy backroom political alliances were undermining effective collaboration, and factions were splintering a suspicious community.
The three trustees never ran for school board to fire Bishop, but they were completely transparent about their concerns over Del Mar's administrative chief. The slate's campaign was an open appeal to voters to return power to the school board. They effectively tapped into pockets of quiet resistance in the community, where dissenters had been silenced for too long.
When all three were elected, defeating a two-term incumbent board president in the process, it was a clear signal that parents and voters had had enough and fully supported the slate's campaign platform to rein in the superintendent. Anything less than a full accounting of his behavior and limitations on his excessive exercise of power would have been a betrayal to those citizens who voted into office this new board majority to do exactly what they promised to do.
So the only surprise is that Bishop was unable to adapt to increased oversight in the year the board majority gave him to improve communication, embrace collaboration, reduce secrecy and eliminate heavy-handed decision-making. To blow a dream gig like he had in Del Mar reflected either an unwillingness to abide by the new rules or a bewildering lack of awareness of new expectations, which were clearly delineated during a rather heated fall 2006 campaign.
If there is another surprise, it is that this resignation took as long as it did to come about, given Bishop's apparent disregard for the board's new performance standards.
Ten years ago, Bishop was hired to replace another long-time Del Mar superintendent, Robert Harriman, whose iron rule and controlling presence during his 13 years at the helm became particularly apparent at the end of his tenure — before the board finally stepped in, placed him on paid administrative leave, and then settled with the standard 18-month buyout.
Seems there is a long tradition in Del Mar of over-eager superintendents ready to fill the power void emanating from decades of weak school boards — and a precedent of costly superintendent buyouts, the reasons for which remain largely unexplained.
Transcripts of a school board meeting held Sept. 10, 1997 show Harriman in full battlefield mode. The issue was overcrowding — primarily at one school, Del Mar Heights, which seems to have a long and colorful history of boisterous civil disobedience when parents feel threatened and bullied.
“I would suggest you take your child out of the school if there are too many, and place them in a private school or somewhere else,” an enraged Harriman told protesting parents in the packed auditorium that night.
In response to one parent in particular, who had been raising concerns about the overcrowding for months, Harriman singled her out by name and said to the crowd, “We don't deserve that. We're not going to take it from any human being on this earth. We have first amendment rights just as any other people. We are not going to work 14 hours a day to have a mouth like that.”
Oddly, Harriman's buyout came just months after the board gave him a glowing performance review in May 1997, complete with a raise and an extension of his contract to four full years. You didn't see that with Bishop.
Similarities between then and now include the fact that no formal explanation was ever given to the public for Harriman's 18-month buyout, no one besides lawyers and board members were involved, informed in advance, or consulted in the decision, and it was a time of great financial hardship for education at the state and local levels.
Harriman's “Voluntary Resignation Agreement,” signed Dec. 4, 1997 and effective Dec. 31, 1997, awarded him 18 months' salary totaling $166,421.46, health benefits for 18 months, and unused vacation days.
Besides board president Jeanne Waite, two of the other four board members back then were Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, both of whom still serve today.
The signed agreement between Harriman and the DMUSD also included the following two delusional clauses that succeeded in fooling no one:
- “The employee and the district agree that the employee successfully served the district as its superintendent for thirteen years, and that the employee was a dedicated, hard-working and competent superintendent. The employee always received good evaluations.”
- “The employee and the district wish each other well and sincerely hope that each will be successful in the future.”
Bishop's settlement agreement also includes 18 months' pay, health benefits and vacation time. But noticeably missing is any language similar to the above.
The only comparable statement in Bishop's agreement is the “non-disparagement” clause that states: “The members of the board of trustees agree not to publicly disparage employee or this agreement, and employee agrees not to publicly disparage the district.”
Tying the board's hands both times was the absence of any clauses for termination in either contract. Unusual by almost every standard, this omission seriously impairs a board's ability to dismiss an employee “for cause” or “at will.”
Because the two contracts were so similar in format and language, one might imagine that the board that dismissed Harriman and was forced to pay him 18 months' salary would have learned a lesson and framed its next superintendent's contract to include those vital missing pieces. But trustees did not.
Ricardo Soto, attorney with Best Best & Krieger, represented the school board in its negotiations with Bishop and said “it's unusual” to have a contract written with no termination clauses, either for cause or at will.
When asked if board members had grievances that were of a nature that would normally be covered by a “for cause” clause, Soto hesitated for several moments before replying succinctly, “There were concerns raised by the board about the superintendent.”
Without termination clauses in a contract, a school board can still find its superintendent in breach of contract and fire him without the standard 18 months' pay. But Soto explained that this too often results in litigation that can end up costing far more than 18 months' worth of salary and can drag on for years without resolution.
The 18-month buyout, he said, is “very common,” and differences are “typically resolved in that manner.”
At the Feb. 26 board meeting when Bishop's resignation was approved, several speakers denounced the “secrecy,” demanding to be told why he was leaving. One speaker even suggested there was precedent for this disclosure with Harriman's settlement.
I covered every bit of the Harriman exit as a reporter, trying desperately to uncover the reasons for his dismissal. Although obvious that his unacceptable public behavior had to be a factor, people wanted to know what the actual grievances were. But to this day, those who sat on the board at the time are faithfully refusing to disclose details and will most likely carry their secret to the grave.
I worship at the altar of Ralph M. Brown, whose open-meeting Brown Act broke new ground in California for the people's right to know. Enacted in 1953, the Brown Act severely limits a public agency's ability to meet in closed session and withhold information from the public.
But in personnel cases, even the Brown Act requires that public agencies, including school boards, protect the privacy of employees by prohibiting closed session personnel matters from being divulged.
So the charge that this current school board is choosing to keep secrets is a manipulative strategy by critics who know full well this information cannot be publicly discussed.
It sounds good to accuse trustees of withholding information — it serves a political purpose, to make them look bad. But imagine if they were to violate confidentiality laws, exposing the district and themselves to punitive legal action by revealing private details.
Although we'll never know all the facts, anyone who's paid the slightest bit of attention to the issues can make a pretty good guess, just like we did with Harriman.
Bishop stumbled mightily on a number of issues: boundaries, busing, hot lunch money, the Torrey Hills biotech issue, the Ashley Falls laptop controversy, funding for enrichment teachers, the sale of the Shores property which cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees to fight two lawsuits, the mess with the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, the intra-district transfer policy and, most recently, the lack of communication over the Sycamore Ridge Spanish language immersion program.
Bishop did many things right, of course, and probably could have been a fine superintendent with a secure place in this district for years to come had there been better oversight and occasional course corrections by a more engaged, involved, former board.
As it is, he exceeded by a long shot the average superintendent tenure of three to four years in one place.
Bishop's contract had more than two years left to run, through June 30, 2010. With the settlement, he will be paid $15,991.77 per month, beginning May 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009. The total buyout will take place over three fiscal years and amounts to less than 1 percent of the district's total $37 million budget.
No dollars will be sacrificed in the classroom, and kids won't feel a pinch in any way, board president Easton said.
Bishop, of course, could have chosen to settle for less than 18 months' pay. Better yet, he could have chosen to work with the new board and alter his management style. But it was not to be.
Those feigning shock over Bishop's departure either weren't paying attention to the obvious or were being deliberately disingenuous. There were many surprising things said at the board meeting that night, but accepting Bishop's resignation was not one of them.
… and the Sideshow
By Marsha Sutton
Life would be so simple if everything were black and white. Issues would be clear, not muddied by nuances and degrees. People could be sorted neatly into two polarized groups.
Unfortunately, life is not like that, and neither are people. Very few are pure evil, or entirely angelic. We are all a complicated mixture of black-and-white — a palate of shades of gray.
When passionate about an issue, it is tempting to push opponents into a villainous corner — a place where there are no redeeming qualities, where individuals can be demonized and vilified. Taking a stand becomes so much clearer when people question the character of their opponents by deflecting focus from the issue to the person's moral fiber.
At the Del Mar Union School District's board meeting on Feb. 26, when the board voted 3-2 to accept Superintendent Tom Bishop's resignation, the temptation to portray three members of the school board as the embodiment of diabolical malfeasance was too great for many to resist.
With a ferocity normally reserved for the despots and tyrants of the world, speakers gave the board an earful. In defense of Bishop, many comments were blistering character assassinations that seemed to gain momentum as the night wore on.
Emboldened by each speech and the tumultuous applause, speakers delivered hurtful words that seemed to spiral out of control, culminating in a diatribe by the former co-president of the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, Debra McGinty-Poteet, who unleashed a vicious condemnation of trustees Annette Easton, Steven McDowell and Katherine White that many believe distorted facts, misrepresented events, turned false rumors into “truths,” and incited the crowd to a near-fevered pitch.
Exceeding the limits of acceptable civil discourse, her dramatic tirade ended with great flourish, when she proffered her written speech, the entire appalling screed, to the board secretary to be entered into the minutes. Her invective vividly demonstrated why so many people recoiled under her leadership.
McGinty-Poteet's torrent of pent-up hostility maligned not just the three-member board majority but also anyone else who may have crossed her over the years. Her targets included:
- former Del Mar mayor Carl Hilliard, whom she implied conspired with McDowell, his neighbor, to negotiate a realistic purchase price of DMUSD's Del Mar Shores property for the city, a price that was actually based on current market appraisals rather than her inflated, pie-in-the-sky numbers
- tireless fundraiser and DMUSD parent and volunteer Laura DeMarco, whom she suggested had a role in “stealing the Shores property from the students of this district”
- Del Mar Heights School principal Wendy Wardlow, who was accused of withholding information about a school theft when it was widely reported that it was Bishop himself who issued the gag order
- Katherine White, criticized for generously donating scads of money over the years to Del Mar's schools (this was a truly bewildering charge: to be ruthlessly hammered for being too charitable)
- the Del Mar Schools Education Foundation, for not disclosing information on its Web site
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
There were many others who chose to engage in denigrating attacks. Even the usually classy Jeanne Waite, former DMUSD board member, began her three minutes at the podium by slinging some below-the-belt mud at Easton's husband, prompting George Easton to shout, “That's a lie!” from the back of the room.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Board members sat quietly, listening to speakers respectfully, giving each of them their three minutes in the spotlight and the courtesy they themselves were frequently denied.
There were moments of decency. Dignified Martha Cox, Bishop's former executive assistant, praised Bishop and spoke eloquently about his contributions to the school district.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Not all, but most teachers were equally respectful, expressing remorse over the loss of their champion and the end of an era. “We will dearly miss our leader,” one said softly.
Yes, he was good to teachers. But Bishop does not walk on water, contrary to what observers might have been led to believe from the adoration he received that night. Nor, because they have been frustrated by some of Bishop's very real leadership flaws, are Easton, McDowell and White the Devil incarnate.
Portraying any of these individuals as anything less than a complex blend of human qualities is a simplistic attempt to bolster shaky positions by advancing divisive and extremist value judgments.
People don't neatly fall into two clearly defined categories. The two-valued orientation system — that everything and everyone is either good or bad, black or white, pure or evil — is a false dichotomy, one that ignores conflicting evidence that makes clear-cut choices not quite so neat and easy.
It is this two-valued orientation that has made the centrist an endangered species these days. Someone who sees both sides is viewed as untrustworthy, spineless or deeply misguided.
Just as Easton, McDowell and White are not malevolent beings, neither should Bishop, or trustees Linda Crawford and Janet Lamborghini, be assigned the blame for every problem in the district. We dishonor these individuals when we categorically dismiss all the good that each of them has done.
At the Feb. 26 board meeting, the 20th speaker of 33 was second-grade teacher Cindy Ralston who, sadly, received only a smattering of applause after speaking shyly about her personal experience with three of the board members.
Ralston spoke about McDowell whom she said spent many a volunteer hour in her classroom, engaging kids in educational discussions that were entertaining and meaningful. White, she said, never failed to support her with a kind word when she thought she might lose her job due to state budget cuts several years ago. And Lamborghini was also praised by Ralston, who said she always offered her a warm, friendly smile when she visited the school.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
Unfortunately, this crowd was in no mood to consider the possibility that White and McDowell might actually be compassionate, caring individuals. Humanizing the enemy was not the message these folks wanted to hear.
I now understand how lynchings can occur. A mob mentality can suppress thoughtful dissent and reasoned statements. It took a brave soul, and there were a few, to stand before this angry multitude and express support for the board's actions.
It's hard to say whether the saddest moment of the night was when Ralston's attempt to humanize board members was greeted with stony silence or when McGinty-Poteet's bitter rant elicited wild cheers.
When elected officials are doing the right thing, there's no need to show up at public meetings, as speaker Mary Farrell stated. But those who support the board majority, those residents who voted into office these three trustees 16 months ago, may have been showing confidence in them and their actions by staying home, blissfully unaware of the emotional carnage that took place that night.
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
So the evening belonged to the dissenters, those loyal Bishop supporters who expressed staged shock over the resignation and wanted a reckoning, a public hanging of sorts.
Will this be Bishop's legacy? A district torn apart by several dozen vocal board opponents whose unbridled fury over his departure is sure to leave scars for years to come? Is this the behavior that defines our community?
The unrestrained force of the words uttered that night was so unsettling that I felt the urge to shower when I returned home, to remove the stink.
The former superintendent started out great, back in 1998. I was a true believer those first few years. He had to work hard to make me a critic; it did not come easy.
But eventually, he over-reached, and made some bad decisions that have had lasting negative effects. The public finally came to see that and elected a new board in 2006 for a change in direction.
Comments suggesting that the stellar reputation of the Del Mar Union School District is due entirely to Bishop, and that his departure means the imminent demise of the district's renowned academic record, are nonsense.
“I don't believe for one minute that the reputation of this district … will diminish one bit,” said parent Catherine Weselak, to the board that night. “Our school district is bigger than one man, one woman and one issue.”
(Right-click and press Play to listen)
No one starring in this little small-town drama deserved the kind of vitriolic assault witnessed that night - whether pro- or anti-Bishop. We are supposed to be the grown-ups.
As we take tentative steps to heal these raw wounds and look for ways to forgive, we should heed the wise advice of Weselak when she said to the crowd, “Let's watch how our children all get along with each other, and let's learn from our children.”
Moving forward under the wise and steady hand of newly appointed interim superintendent Janet Bernard, who was endorsed by the school board unanimously to guide the district during this transitional phase, may be just the salve needed to soothe an aching community.
As we support Bernard in her efforts to build bridges, let's take a collective deep breath and try to resist the urge to categorize people as either virtuous or abominable. We are all a unique fusion of traits, a canvas of qualities, a balance of idiosyncratic attributes — in other words, only human. And let's save the bad stuff for the truly wicked.
|