Just one iInteraction with the AAPS

As an example of what is wrong, organizationally, with the District Administration, read the following: just one example, a series of emails between the Superintendent and a member of CRS. The emails were carbon-copied to State representatives, the Mayor, and the State Superintendent.

11/9/04
Dear Dr. Fornero and Board members,

I feel must write with some comments about last night's meeting about the proposed new high school. Sadly, it was another example of the kind of behavior we have seen for weeks and months now.

I found it unconscionable that, as with previous neighborhood meetings, so few members of the Board were present. Public commentary during Board meetings is met consistently with blank stares and no response. That is why many of the public feel that the neighborhood meetings are their only hope of engaging in a real exchange of information. Last night's meeting was, again, poorly attended by the Board, and was, again, a wash of unclear presentations and quick, offhand and vague answers to questions and comments from the interested public.

Of course, thanks should go to the one trustee that did attend, but I must also say that I found it incredibly rude that that trustee was not introduced or in any way acknowledged.

Though I don't feel the architect's vision appropriately addressed important issues of the site, at least as a presenter, he was articulate and clear. The presenters for the traffic study were, I dare say, inarticulate and unclear. It was not the first time that the junior presenter had to be relieved of her duties in front of an audience. Unfortunately, the main representative who took over is not a good speaker and was not much more able to make the data or the simulation understandable to those present.

How can the neighbors whose families will be directly affected by what they consider to be a dangerous traffic situation be convinced otherwise, how can they be expected to feel better about it, be made to feel that such important issues are in competent hands, when they are subjected to such a lack of professionalism? Is it not in the District's own best interest to present information clearly, professionally, and to engage in dialog with the public on specific concerns?

You must realize that whatever frustration is exhibited by many of the public is not without cause. It has grown over time due specifically to the actions of the District and its representatives; ignoring reasonable, rational questions and arguments and dismissing intelligent people as an annoyance will cause those people to become frustrated.

Finally, I must call your attention to what was probably the nadir of the evening: Peter Ways at one point concluded, since he and a couple of the other presenters were unable to understand one attendee's question (though many of the audience were able to do so), "We don't understand your question. All right, next questioner!" That sort of rudeness, such an attitude, in public, towards the public, by a public official is unforgivable, and I hope that he will be making a public apology for it.

Thank you

Subject: Re: Interaction with the public
Date: Nov 11, 2004

We regret that we seem to have reached an impasse in our conversations where all of us engaged seem to feel unable to fully communicate with each other and be heard. More difficult, perhaps, for both administration and the Board, is the sense that there is nothing we can do short of stopping work on what we believe to be a reasonable and acceptable site -- no amount of information, no additional community meetings, no assurances from experts or transportation collaborators, no additional data -- that will convince you of our hard work, sincerity and trustworthiness. We have great confidence in the many staff, contractors, financial experts, and administrators involved in creating the best outcomes possible for all our bond projects. And the ultimate test of our abilities and due diligence will be the delivery of these best outcomes. That is where we are striving to be over the next five years, and where we are beginning to be five months into our work. The community's input has been important and invaluable, but it is only one part of the whole effort. And the community immediately around the new high school is only one part of the entire community.

We look hopefully to every step forward we now make in partnership with all various constituencies as we solidify our planning and implementation of our bond initiatives.

George V. Fornero, Superintendent
Debra Mexicotte, Secretary, Board of Education

Subject: Re: Interaction with the public
Date: November 15, 2004
Dr. Fornero, Ms. Mexicotte,

I thank you for the promptness of your return email. I am disappointed, however, that it gives every impression, ironically, of being yet another example of exactly one of the issues I was bringing up: a general response to specific points. I believe my specific points were stated clearly in my original email to you (below). It is, I believe, a symptom of the organizational culture of the Ann Arbor Public School District's administration to deal with opposite opinions by hoping to simply parry them.

Let me address the main statements you made in your return email:

1) It seems that we have "reached an impasse".
2) It seems that "no amount of information, no additional community meetings, no assurances from experts..., no additional data ... will convince" us of your "hard work, sincerity and trustworthiness."
3) It seems the only way to prove you were right all along is to wait till the end of the project and see that you were right all along.
4) It seems that "the community's input ... is only one part of the whole effort."
5) It seems that "the community immediately around the new high school is only one part of the entire community."

1) You say that we have reached an impasse. Taken cynically, this is a convenient way of terminating discussion. Taken more positively, about a week ago, you came out of a Board meeting to talk with several members of our group. This was the closest you ever came to agreeing to meet face to face and discuss questions and concerns. This might address the frustration, mentioned in my original email, that at Board meetings no one has more than 4 minutes to make statements or ask questions, always without interaction with the Board, and during so-called neighborhood meetings you and your contractors (but not the Board members) present information in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion and then give general, dismissive and condescending answers to questions and concerns from the public. You may remember that very early on we delivered to you a petition, signed by about 300 residents from all over the Ann Arbor DIstrict asking for precisely that sort of give and take meeting, a petition that was effectively ignored. There were also conflicting statements from the Administration. You told us that the neighborhood meeting *was* the meeting we asked for (though it wouldn't include people outside the neighborhood and was far more presentation than give and take), but Liz Margolis told us in no uncertain terms that that sort of meeting would never happen, that the Board does not have give and take discussions with the public. When I hear of local school boards in other parts of the country having residents participate in all aspects of a major plan such as this one, at all levels, I wonder why we here, in a town like Ann Arbor, have still never had that sort of meeting.

2) I might turn this statement around and say the same: "no amount of information we have gathered, no amount of logic or rational and studied arguments of issues, nothing from us has convinced you of our hard work, sincerity and trustworthiness." As far as "community meetings," you must realize that what is needed is not "additional" community meetings like the ones we've experienced. The number is not important. It is the attitude and behavior displayed at them that is of concern. It is about the lack of openness to suggestions, openness to information that might force a rethinking. It is about the condescending and dismissive nature of your interactions with the public.

I understand that the District is, in many ways, unregulated in its endeavor to build a new high school. You don't really have to answer to anyone. I'm afraid that this "absolute power" has bred an arrogance and closed-mindedness in your approach to every aspect of this project.

As for "no amount of information, ... no additional data": remember that it was a large group of residents whose insistence forced the District into doing what it should have done from the beginning, making information public. Some things have indeed appeared on the District website. For that, thank you, even though everything related to this very large project is under one link, and even in the Bond related web pages, as much as possible is hidden in PDF files that force users to download *before* they can search or see information. However, even after some data and more general responses to questions appeared on the web site, residents have had to FOIA the District for public information. I'll repeat that: residents have had to FOIA the District for public information. I don't know how you can insist that the District has been forthcoming.

3) Using the logic in your statement, one might also say that the only way to prove the District was wrong all along is to wait till the end of the project and see how much of the environment is damaged because of the construction and lack of easements and stewardship into the future, and see what the unsafe traffic conditions will have wrought in the way of accidents and slow downs on Maple Road.

4) Granted the community's input is only one part. But you live in a community that is well-known for having a large number of intelligent and highly educated people. Their opinions and questions should be deliberately considered, not dismissed arrogantly.

5) Though your statement "the community immediately around the new high school is only one part of the entire community" is, like others, dismissive in nature, I of course grant you the statement's essential truth. However, there are several points to be made here. First, I personally know of several educated, intelligent people, who do not live "immediately around the new high school," who voted for the school but did not know where it was to be sited. (Despite all your disclaimers about a few community forums and information printed in the local paper, something seems wrong. Surely these otherwise well-informed people can't be blamed for their not knowing about the site. Is it simply their fault for being uninformed?) There was a simple solution that was not taken; I have asked several times and must again demand a response: Why was the site not mentioned in the ballot or the bond package to the State? With the amount of effort that went into the wording of the ballot as well as the creation of the bond package, was it intentional hiding of information or was it an unintentional oversight?

Secondly, the District has effectively ignored both letters from the Sierra Club (the District's "responses" being characteristically vague and dismissive) which represents 3,800 people concerned about the environment. Not to be snide, but very few of that number live in the neighborhood. The issues are greater than you make them out to be.

Finally, I must demand a response to the specific points I have made here (re: inclusion of site on ballot and in bond) and those I made in my original email message, that you did not address, about the meeting on November 8, 2004:
1) the reason only one Board member attended the meeting and in fact, why Board members are not part of the discussion at these meetings
2) the reason the Board member was not introduced and invited into the discussion
2) the vague, condescending and dismissive answers to questions and concerns of the public by Mr. Galardi
3) the inept presenters and their inability to satisfactorily explain their traffic study and simulation
4) and most importantly,Peter Ways' particularly and unashamedly rude behavior and why he should not be called to make an apology, at the very least, to everyone present at that meeting

Thank you

	Fighting Mismanagement in the Ann Arbor Public Schools District "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers" — Thomas Pynchon

Main Archives Page (New High School) Environment Land Use Traffic School size Demographics Safety Archaeology Alternative sites In the News About CRS Write a letter ! Contact Us Home Page	Just one interaction with the AAPS As an example of what is wrong, organizationally, with the District Administration, read the following: just one example, a series of emails between the Superintendent and a member of CRS. The emails were carbon-copied to State representatives, the Mayor, and the State Superintendent. 11/9/04 Dear Dr. Fornero and Board members, I feel must write with some comments about last night's meeting about the proposed new high school. Sadly, it was another example of the kind of behavior we have seen for weeks and months now. I found it unconscionable that, as with previous neighborhood meetings, so few members of the Board were present. Public commentary during Board meetings is met consistently with blank stares and no response. That is why many of the public feel that the neighborhood meetings are their only hope of engaging in a real exchange of information. Last night's meeting was, again, poorly attended by the Board, and was, again, a wash of unclear presentations and quick, offhand and vague answers to questions and comments from the interested public. Of course, thanks should go to the one trustee that did attend, but I must also say that I found it incredibly rude that that trustee was not introduced or in any way acknowledged. Though I don't feel the architect's vision appropriately addressed important issues of the site, at least as a presenter, he was articulate and clear. The presenters for the traffic study were, I dare say, inarticulate and unclear. It was not the first time that the junior presenter had to be relieved of her duties in front of an audience. Unfortunately, the main representative who took over is not a good speaker and was not much more able to make the data or the simulation understandable to those present. How can the neighbors whose families will be directly affected by what they consider to be a dangerous traffic situation be convinced otherwise, how can they be expected to feel better about it, be made to feel that such important issues are in competent hands, when they are subjected to such a lack of professionalism? Is it not in the District's own best interest to present information clearly, professionally, and to engage in dialog with the public on specific concerns? You must realize that whatever frustration is exhibited by many of the public is not without cause. It has grown over time due specifically to the actions of the District and its representatives; ignoring reasonable, rational questions and arguments and dismissing intelligent people as an annoyance will cause those people to become frustrated. Finally, I must call your attention to what was probably the nadir of the evening: Peter Ways at one point concluded, since he and a couple of the other presenters were unable to understand one attendee's question (though many of the audience were able to do so), "We don't understand your question. All right, next questioner!" That sort of rudeness, such an attitude, in public, towards the public, by a public official is unforgivable, and I hope that he will be making a public apology for it. Thank you Subject: Re: Interaction with the public Date: Nov 11, 2004 We regret that we seem to have reached an impasse in our conversations where all of us engaged seem to feel unable to fully communicate with each other and be heard. More difficult, perhaps, for both administration and the Board, is the sense that there is nothing we can do short of stopping work on what we believe to be a reasonable and acceptable site -- no amount of information, no additional community meetings, no assurances from experts or transportation collaborators, no additional data -- that will convince you of our hard work, sincerity and trustworthiness. We have great confidence in the many staff, contractors, financial experts, and administrators involved in creating the best outcomes possible for all our bond projects. And the ultimate test of our abilities and due diligence will be the delivery of these best outcomes. That is where we are striving to be over the next five years, and where we are beginning to be five months into our work. The community's input has been important and invaluable, but it is only one part of the whole effort. And the community immediately around the new high school is only one part of the entire community. We look hopefully to every step forward we now make in partnership with all various constituencies as we solidify our planning and implementation of our bond initiatives. George V. Fornero, Superintendent Debra Mexicotte, Secretary, Board of Education Subject: Re: Interaction with the public Date: November 15, 2004 Dr. Fornero, Ms. Mexicotte, I thank you for the promptness of your return email. I am disappointed, however, that it gives every impression, ironically, of being yet another example of exactly one of the issues I was bringing up: a general response to specific points. I believe my specific points were stated clearly in my original email to you (below). It is, I believe, a symptom of the organizational culture of the Ann Arbor Public School District's administration to deal with opposite opinions by hoping to simply parry them. Let me address the main statements you made in your return email: 1) It seems that we have "reached an impasse". 2) It seems that "no amount of information, no additional community meetings, no assurances from experts..., no additional data ... will convince" us of your "hard work, sincerity and trustworthiness." 3) It seems the only way to prove you were right all along is to wait till the end of the project and see that you were right all along. 4) It seems that "the community's input ... is only one part of the whole effort." 5) It seems that "the community immediately around the new high school is only one part of the entire community." 1) You say that we have reached an impasse. Taken cynically, this is a convenient way of terminating discussion. Taken more positively, about a week ago, you came out of a Board meeting to talk with several members of our group. This was the closest you ever came to agreeing to meet face to face and discuss questions and concerns. This might address the frustration, mentioned in my original email, that at Board meetings no one has more than 4 minutes to make statements or ask questions, always without interaction with the Board, and during so-called neighborhood meetings you and your contractors (but not the Board members) present information in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion and then give general, dismissive and condescending answers to questions and concerns from the public. You may remember that very early on we delivered to you a petition, signed by about 300 residents from all over the Ann Arbor DIstrict asking for precisely that sort of give and take meeting, a petition that was effectively ignored. There were also conflicting statements from the Administration. You told us that the neighborhood meeting was the meeting we asked for (though it wouldn't include people outside the neighborhood and was far more presentation than give and take), but Liz Margolis told us in no uncertain terms that that sort of meeting would never happen, that the Board does not have give and take discussions with the public. When I hear of local school boards in other parts of the country having residents participate in all aspects of a major plan such as this one, at all levels, I wonder why we here, in a town like Ann Arbor, have still never had that sort of meeting. 2) I might turn this statement around and say the same: "no amount of information we have gathered, no amount of logic or rational and studied arguments of issues, nothing from us has convinced you of our hard work, sincerity and trustworthiness." As far as "community meetings," you must realize that what is needed is not "additional" community meetings like the ones we've experienced. The number is not important. It is the attitude and behavior displayed at them that is of concern. It is about the lack of openness to suggestions, openness to information that might force a rethinking. It is about the condescending and dismissive nature of your interactions with the public. I understand that the District is, in many ways, unregulated in its endeavor to build a new high school. You don't really have to answer to anyone. I'm afraid that this "absolute power" has bred an arrogance and closed-mindedness in your approach to every aspect of this project. As for "no amount of information, ... no additional data": remember that it was a large group of residents whose insistence forced the District into doing what it should have done from the beginning, making information public. Some things have indeed appeared on the District website. For that, thank you, even though everything related to this very large project is under one link, and even in the Bond related web pages, as much as possible is hidden in PDF files that force users to download before they can search or see information. However, even after some data and more general responses to questions appeared on the web site, residents have had to FOIA the District for public information. I'll repeat that: residents have had to FOIA the District for public information. I don't know how you can insist that the District has been forthcoming. 3) Using the logic in your statement, one might also say that the only way to prove the District was wrong all along is to wait till the end of the project and see how much of the environment is damaged because of the construction and lack of easements and stewardship into the future, and see what the unsafe traffic conditions will have wrought in the way of accidents and slow downs on Maple Road. 4) Granted the community's input is only one part. But you live in a community that is well-known for having a large number of intelligent and highly educated people. Their opinions and questions should be deliberately considered, not dismissed arrogantly. 5) Though your statement "the community immediately around the new high school is only one part of the entire community" is, like others, dismissive in nature, I of course grant you the statement's essential truth. However, there are several points to be made here. First, I personally know of several educated, intelligent people, who do not live "immediately around the new high school," who voted for the school but did not know where it was to be sited. (Despite all your disclaimers about a few community forums and information printed in the local paper, something seems wrong. Surely these otherwise well-informed people can't be blamed for their not knowing about the site. Is it simply their fault for being uninformed?) There was a simple solution that was not taken; I have asked several times and must again demand a response: Why was the site not mentioned in the ballot or the bond package to the State? With the amount of effort that went into the wording of the ballot as well as the creation of the bond package, was it intentional hiding of information or was it an unintentional oversight? Secondly, the District has effectively ignored both letters from the Sierra Club (the District's "responses" being characteristically vague and dismissive) which represents 3,800 people concerned about the environment. Not to be snide, but very few of that number live in the neighborhood. The issues are greater than you make them out to be. Finally, I must demand a response to the specific points I have made here (re: inclusion of site on ballot and in bond) and those I made in my original email message, that you did not address, about the meeting on November 8, 2004: 1) the reason only one Board member attended the meeting and in fact, why Board members are not part of the discussion at these meetings 2) the reason the Board member was not introduced and invited into the discussion 2) the vague, condescending and dismissive answers to questions and concerns of the public by Mr. Galardi 3) the inept presenters and their inability to satisfactorily explain their traffic study and simulation 4) and most importantly,Peter Ways' particularly and unashamedly rude behavior and why he should not be called to make an apology, at the very least, to everyone present at that meeting Thank you