An open reply to Ms. Andrew

Ms. Andrew:

Once again, let me thank you for your reply and for taking the time and trouble to try to clear up the issues surrounding the BoE’s search for a new superintendent for the district.

In the interest of optimal clarity, I will insert any comments or questions directly within a copy of your last post, using a different font and color.

First, I am in fact Marcia Andrew, President of the Middletown Board of Education.

I hope that you did not consider my remarks regarding “someone purporting to be Marcia Andrew” to be either accusatory or offensive, as that was not the intent. As you might be aware, imposters do sometimes use the internet to “stir the pot” or otherwise misrepresent the positions of others. I, myself, have been the victim of imposters taking positions that I did not and would not hold.

I did post yesterday on this site, to correct an incorrect theory you are expounding. I (like you) believe that a person should be willing to acknowledge their postings and not hide behind anonymous tag names.

We are certainly in agreement on this point. While I understand that many people have valid reasons for remaining anonymous (such as fear of retribution), I am in a position that leaves me virtually free of such fears. I try to research my positions before I espouse them, and would (and often do) state them in public. I also do my best to correct or retract any erroneous statements I have made to the best of my ability.

I have also learned that if rumors aren't confronted early on, they are repeated until some believe them as verified fact.

I do not take issue with this sentiment. However, in this particular case, I do believe that “rumor” is too harsh of a term. Given the totality of the information available to the general public, when it was available to the general public, what other conclusions could be reasonably reached without blind “leaps of faith”?

I will try to respond to the points in your post. I went through the history of the search process with the new education reporter for the Middletown Journal, trying to clear up some of the misperceptions, but the Journal did not see fit to report any of my comments.

Given the editorial position that The Journal had taken, perhaps the BoE should have publicly corrected the “misperceptions” as they occurred. Certain stances by the BoE obviously were souring the public on the way the process was proceeding, and to allow any misperceptions to continue uncorrected could hardly have been expected to enhance the public’s opinion of the entire affair. At least that is my considered opinion.

Carney, Sandoe posted the position description developed by the Board with input from the September forums. That search firm also actively recruited candidates for the position. As Mr. Rasmussen stated Friday night, he was not looking for the job and only threw his hat in the ring after being persuaded to do so by Carney, Sandoe. The search firm then screened the applicants based on our criteria, and presented 30 candidates to the Board at a meeting on November 21. We discussed the information in the candidates' resumes and their qualifications, including the search consultants' comments on initial telephone interviews he conducted with each of them.

Okay…so far, so good.

We did not take away from the meeting copies of the resumes, or a list of names, and the search process included the search consultant returning resumes to all candidates.

The resumes were returned to “all candidates” after the November 21 meeting but prior to the December 11/12 meetings? And no BoE member or employee of the MCSD kept any list of names or made notes of the names of the eight (or more) initial “short list” candidates? This is one area where, at least for me, credulity begins to be “strained”. Ms. Andrew, please recall the following from The Journal’s December 9^th editorial:

“At its Nov. 21 meeting, the board claimed that the consultant's representative brought all information about approximately 30 applicants into the meeting in a box and then took all documents - including board members' notes! - with him. That ruse was used so that the board could say with a straight face that it has no documents that must be shared with the public.

This week, board President Greg Tyus said the board will interview eight candidates on Dec. 11 and 12. Board members said Dec. 7 that they have not even received the names of the candidates from the consultant - so they allegedly don't know who they will be interviewing.”

Once again, Ms. Andrew, I want to believe this, but I am having difficulty in doing so. Allow me to explain why:

If I now understand correctly, CSA presented the BoE with the resumes of THIRTY applicants on November 21, and took back those resumes at the end of the meeting. In order to select the top ten (minimum) and rank them at the very least as a top eight, plus two alternates (as you seem to indicate) one might assume that copies were made--at least one copy of each resume for each BoE member. It would seem unfathomable that the consultant and all five BoE members could impartially choose the ten best candidates out of thirty applicants while working off of a single, original resume of each of the thirty applicants, so would I be correct in assuming that five copies of each resume were made? If so, this means that the thirty originals and 150 copies were retrieved by CSA at the end of the meeting, along with ALL notes made by the BoE or MCSD staff. Is that what you are asking us to believe? I also am confused as to why “the search process included the search consultant returning resumes to all candidates.” It would seem to be a simple matter for the search consultant to destroy all of the resumes and copies. What possible benefit to anyone could it be to take the time, and go to the trouble and expense of returning them? I hope that you can understand why I am having difficulty with this.

That is why, after we selected the 3 finalists, the Board asked the finalists to provide their resumes and a letter of interest directly to us.

Forgive me, I guess that I am a tad slow. Let me be sure that I have this right: The BoE engaged a consultant (CSA), at a cost to the district in excess of $25K, to find suitable candidates for MCSD Superintendent. The consultant brought the resumes of about 30 candidates to Middletown where those thirty were short-listed to a group of eight, plus at least two alternates on or about November 21. After this meeting, all originals and copies (if any) of all resumes, along with all notes made by the BoE or any of the district’s staff, were collected by the consultant and the resumes were returned to the respective candidates. Then interviews were arranged with these eight candidates with the BoE, in Middletown, over the weekend of December 11. (It is unclear to me whether or not the BoE had access to resumes or their earlier notes or not during these interviews , or if the BoE was reminded of the identities of the interviewees.) At some point after these interviews, the BoE further shortened the list to three apparent finalists, “the Board” asked the finalists to provide their resumes directly to the BOARD. Mr. Sommers and Mr. Rasmussen apparently did so. However, somehow Mr. Martin’s resume, which I understood was included as one of those described above in your statement: “the search process included the search consultant returning resumes to all candidates” mysteriously was faxed from the consultant’s 416 telephone on December 19^th. Are we to understand that Mr. Martin happened to be visiting with the consultant, at their office when “the Board asked the finalists to provide their resumes and a letter of interest directly to us.”? Or did Mr. Martin misunderstand your request, date it September 23, and send it instead to CSA even though it was addressed to the BoE in Middletown, and CSA forwarded it via fax merely as a courtesy?

As soon as Rev. Tyus received these from the finalists, he turned them over to the Journal pursuant to their public records request.

The Board, not the consultant, narrowed the field from 30 to 8 for interviews, at the Nov. 21 meeting. However, until the consultant contacted those individuals to confirm their availability for interviews, we did not know for sure who we would be interviewing. As it happened, two withdrew (one had accepted another position, one for health reasons) and the search consultant then contacted the next 2 candidates in order of preference based on our discussions at the Nov. 21 meeting.

Well, I certainly do not blame you for being unsure who you “would be interviewing.” I am having difficulty following this process and I have the luxury of being able to go back over it as often as I feel necessary. It is truly mind-numbing (and I can make notes and keep them and refer to them as frequently as I like!)

Although their names had been mentioned, our focus was on their qualifications and experience, not their names, and since we did not have a list of names, we were not able to state them.

I must commend you for being able to be sure that you actually kept them straight and ended up with the intended three finalists, given that their names had only been “mentioned”, that you had no notes, you had no resumes, nor even “a list of names”!

The line you quote from the Journal about the Dec. 7th statements appears to have misquoted the unnamed board members. I am sure you will not be surprised that the Journal does not always accurately report the facts or accurately quote people. (Just last week, it stated that Tyus had been president of the board for 4 years. You and I know that is not correct).

No, Ms. Andrew, it does not surprise me that The Journal misquoted someone, especially given the intricacy of the proceedings that you have outlined. In fact, it appears that The Journal was at odds with your story not only in their story on December 7, but also in their editorial on December 9^th. What does surprise me is that you (you, the BoE--not you personally) did not try to correct the record earlier. I can assure you that I would have done so at the earliest possible opportunity! And if The Journal would not print such clarifications, I would have addressed the public in the “Comments” at the end of The Journal’s articles and editorials, and in public forums such as here on MiddletownUSA.

Each of the finalists provided a list of references, and we have called each of those.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Board has no desire to be secret for the sake of secrecy. We chose not to disclose the names of candidates who did not make the finalist cut in order to insure the broadest field in order to find the best person to lead the Middletown schools. Many of the candidates would not have remained in the search if this process was not followed. We have been open about the process we are following, and have sought public input at several stages.

I will not comment on these last remarks at this time.

Ms. Andrew:

I am glad to hear that: “As to the facts, I think we are down to very minor details.”

As I mentioned in earlier posts, I very much want to understand and believe the BoE’s version of the way this transpired. To that end, I have attempted to edit the last summary of my understanding:　

Forgive me, I guess that I am a tad slow. Let me be sure that I have this right: The BoE engaged a consultant (CSA), at a cost to the district in excess of $25K, to find suitable candidates for MCSD Superintendent. The consultant received about 80 resumes and, using the Board’s criteria, screened the group down to the thirty most appropriate. The consultant brought the resumes of about 30 candidates to Middletown where those thirty were short-listed to a group of eight, plus at least two alternates on or about November 21. After this meeting, all originals and copies (if any) of all resumes, along with all notes made by the BoE or any of the district’s staff, were collected by the consultant and the resumes were returned to the respective candidates. Then interviews were arranged with these eight candidates with the BoE, in Middletown, over the weekend of December 11. (It is unclear to me whether or not the BoE had access to resumes or their earlier notes or not during these interviews , or if the BoE was reminded of the identities of the interviewees.) At some point after these interviews, the BoE further shortened the list to three apparent finalists, “the Board” asked the finalists to provide their resumes directly to the BOARD. Mr. Sommers and Mr. Rasmussen apparently did so. However, somehow Mr. Martin’s original cover letter and resume, which I understood was included as one of those described above in your statement: “the search process included the search consultant returning resumes to all candidates” mysteriously was faxed from the consultant’s 416 telephone on December 19^th. Are we to understand that Mr. Martin happened to be visiting with the consultant, at their office when “the Board asked the finalists to provide their resumes and a letter of interest directly to us.”? Or did Martin misunderstand your request, date it September 23, and send it was mistakenly sent by Mr. Martin instead back to CSA even though it was addressed to the BoE in Middletown, and CSA forwarded it via fax merely as a courtesy?.