Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Statement of Debra Carlier
Member of Pickerington Local Board of Education
July 23, 1999
Special Meeting of Pickerington Board of Education
2:00 P.M.

At the last board meeting, July 12, 1999, statements were expressed by Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes that need to be addressed for clarification of facts. These comments were personally directed in nature and shared some false statements. I feel that these comments need to be addressed as quickly as possible. Today?’s meeting is the next available opportunity. I have been faced with these types of issues before. After much consideration, I no longer feel that silence is appropriate. I have been thrust into the position where it has become necessary to speak openly about these issues. I do not believe that personal items should be discussed during the public forum. I have not been given any other alternative other than to address these falsehoods in the public forum as they were initially presented.

I also want to make it quite clear that all board members have been notified that I would be addressing concerns about such clarification of facts, communication, and being a divided board at today?’s meeting. I offered open lines to talk with me about their thoughts prior to Friday. Mr. Rigelman is on vacation at this time as he informed me at the July 12th meeting. I notified him of the same by email. He did not personally leave me any other means of contact.

1) As quoted from Mr. Rigelman, ?“Some people want to do a levy, but I don?’t.?” There have been no conversations between myself or Mr. Rigelman as well as no board discussion regarding the future levy needs. I, personally, have been waiting to see the results of the new state biennial budget to be able to fully form my own opinion. This budget was not signed by Governor Taft until June 29th. Until then our school district did not know with any certainty how much revenue would be received from state sources. Mr. Rigelman issued a false statement to this issue when he later directed his reference to the board members. In specific, Mr. Rigelman informed all of us when we were scheduling a meeting that he was the one of us that needed convincing. Please feel free to ask my other colleagues of their own knowledge of this matter. It is also on audiotape.

The conversations that I know have taken place prior to the meeting of the 12th involving board members have been when Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes met with individual levy committee members over lunch. These are meetings of which I was not informed by Mr. Rigelman or Mrs. Oakes. The parties involved have not discussed the contents of the discussions with me. I can also say that I do not feel that the contents of these meetings needed to be discussed with me. I am simply comparing these meetings to the demands for being informed as placed before all by Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes at the last meeting. There appears to be a double standard.

Further, I have had recent reports of sharing our forecast projections with lay people. The sharing was not given in the same context as it was prepared. Frequently, our treasurer prepares the forecast documents to show how changes in assumptions affect our financial picture. This is accepted, prudent financial planning practice.
To Be Continued....

More History While We're At It 2

It is admirable to answer questions. The forecasting tool is a fine illustrative method. It is despicable to use this forecast without showing the forecast that most closely represents our financial picture. Instead a forecast was presented that shows an extreme to the contrary. This only causes a muddy picture for the recipient, and causes a question of confidence in the forecast and the integrity of all involved.

Remember that this document is only going to be as accurate as the assumptions on which it is made. The tool shared showed a wide array of assumptions. It was a planning tool. The individual that questioned me did not know this fact. A bank attorney such as Mr. Rigelman, has the ability to know the ramifications of a lack of full disclosure. He understands this forecasting process. He is the one that shared the forecast in this manner. His approach left a false impression. I sincerely hope that anyone else having such questions will ask the appropriate personnel. I wish to thank the individual that did not just walk away. Our desire is to fully inform the public of financial issues. Updates are presented at every regular public meeting.

2) Mrs. Oakes stated that she did not know of the administrator luncheon. In fact, Mrs. Oakes did know by a conversation between her and an administrator approximately three weeks earlier. It was after June 21st. This could again be verified. My knowledge of this let me move on to other matters of business to be coordinated. This is a responsibility of the Board President. I present to you that it is true that I did not place the calls. I wrongly assumed communication of this luncheon would have taken place from Mrs. Oakes to Mr. Rigelman. For that, I am truly sorry. Others did have knowledge prior to the luncheon. I also openly discussed this luncheon at the board meeting when a general presentation was made to the public.

Mrs. Oakes also falsely discussed that the administrators received the report before the board did. The fact is that all board members received the complete report prior to the meeting no later than on July 9th and as early as July 8th. I picked up my mail at the district office on the 8th and Mrs. Oakes had already picked up these materials. Again, these are facts that can be supported by others. I implore you to confer with others to verify my credibility. I also stated this fact at the July 12th meeting.

Consultants prepared the analysis report. These consultants spend considerable time out of state. It was imperative to synchronize schedules appropriately to give opportunity for the best use of their time and to fully include all involved. This is what was done. This also follows practices done by other boards.

3) Furthermore, knowledge of this beforehand gave Mrs. Oakes every opportunity of addressing her concerns to me before this luncheon happened. She did not. To reiterate her quote, ?“This shows the board is not communicating together?…?” I offer further assessment that, ?“This case shows that Mrs. Oakes not only knew, but refused to communicate her concerns in a timely manner even when ample time was available to assist in efficient board operations.?”
To Be Continued....

More History While We're At It 3

4) I am further concerned when individuals do not pick up the phone to question such important business to come before the board as an executive session. I had expressed the need for legal clarity prior to placement of this on the agenda. I am also responsible to be correct as Board President. This matter was then discussed with our own legal counsel. I again asked the question early that evening when I was told that the executive session was being questioned by Mrs. Oakes to Mr. Sigman. Legal counsel went through this again with me. It was double-checked at least! Another fact that can be backed by other sources.

Mr. Rigelman never expressed any prior concern over what he referred to during the meeting as ?“tenuous?” or that he would not participate in any executive session. This total lack of communication from Mr. Rigelman does not provide the same standard against that in which he holds or demands of others! I am concerned about continued attack by Mr. Rigelman upon the credibility and integrity of our own legal counsel. Mr. Rigelman may have his juris doctorate, but he is not a school law attorney. It is also a conflict of interest for him to try to act as such.

As a board member, I do not feel comfortable considering the legal advisement of anyone other than our own legal counsel. Other individuals such as Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes do have their own choices. Legal consultations are to be taken very seriously.

5) As is evidenced by the above this Board of Education has severe problems. We are a divided board! The community does need to see this be addressed as they will be called upon to address it by their votes for board members this November.

Whenever I am in a position to go forward with working with other entities, I am strongly reminded of a lack of confidence in some factions of the board, most specifically created by Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes. This has continued to be presented by some other elected officials. I must remind these same individuals that they are talking about individual personalities and not the board. I can honestly tell you this problem is affecting our board to the analogy of trying to walk forward while wearing lead boots.

The divided board is affecting our effectiveness with others. The community has continually made requests for us to work on agreements affecting growth with the other entities. There are also continued references to planning.

The administrative analysis is a planning document as well as a resource. The board consensus asked for an out of district opinion. This process continues to be sabotaged by a minority opinion. Mrs. Sanders and I specifically started in the beginning to include points expressed out of previous concern addressed by Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes. We looked at this as a way to try to build consensus and develop planning tools.

To Be Continued...

More History While We're At It 4

There are continued public references by Mr. Rigelman that ?“I will only support something if?…?…?” These statements are mostly made before any facts are heard. Mrs. Oakes has also gone on the record with similar statements in writing and orally with Mr. Rigelman, during our preparations for placement of the last tax levy on the ballot. It is a poor decision process to not be willing to listen. Sometimes this ?“something if?” does not meet with majority consensus. I feel each one of us is responsible for thinking for ourselves. Sometimes I as an individual support what is requested and sometimes I do not. Mr. Rigelman does follow through with his threats. This close-minded process is a no-win situation for the rest of the board or the community. As he clearly states frequently, ?“My vote is no unless?…?”

6) No board is going to be unanimous all of the time. Having different views and votes is healthy and essential to good decisions. It is very important to be able to express convictions and a variety of approaches to problems. Board members must be able to express their own convictions and understand alternatives. They must be very willing to listen to all sides!

A board searching for alternatives is not the same thing as a divided board. A divided board occurs when:
 Votes frequently split along factional lines, regardless of the issue.
 Members have deep philosophical differences about the way the schools should be run.
 Personality conflicts, political considerations, and personal needs guide its decisions.
 Members do not understand or exercise teamwork.

The end result of a divided board can be poor communications and poor decision making. One of the biggest problems of the divided board comes from how it is seen by the community and the press. Some boards that are divided can learn to work together. A good debate can really discuss issues in depth thus giving better decisions as a result. Most divided board situations create far more problems than benefits.

In spite of frequent reminders to talk and ask questions, I have not seen any improvement over this year. As stated before, I have not made public statements of this as a matter of concern until now. This door was widely opened by Mr. Rigelman and Mrs. Oakes. I am watching the chasm widen between the Rigelman-Oakes faction and the Sanders-Sigman-Carlier faction.

As Board President, I must request purposeful and concentrated participation to strive for improvement. I do not see any attempt of such by the above referenced incidents. Instead, I see a willingness to state falsehoods as an attempt to discredit others that cannot be tolerated. These falsehood statements are not only directed at board members but administrators as well. In addition, the refusal to talk about individual concerns and a lack of talking to the appropriate administration for additional questions has not improved.

I do not want to be part of a divided board. I have always been willing to talk. I cannot read minds! I cannot make you participate! I have openly said that I respect the diversity and that different decisions are to be valued.

Debate is the free, orderly exchange of ideas. This is one of our purposes and duties. All members are to be allowed to speak their opinions openly, without the fear of condemnation or reprisal. This debate reflects the will of the majority, but ensures the rights of the minority.

To Be Continued.....