Notes From The TUSD Board Meeting

1. Let’s not get too excited until we hear back from the auditor general and establish a permanent independent auditor who reports to the board. The conflicting stories we are hearing about the district’s financial situation only highlight the need for the independent auditor reporting to the board, a reform that has been advocated by the Star and by some of the board candidates, Putnam-Hidalgo and Campos-Fleenor among them.

2. Portland, our sister socialist metropolis has a school system that is just about as old as TUSD. From Wilshire to Grant HS, these old facilities have become launching pads for national athletics but little else. When’s the last time you heard about Rhodes Scholars coming from NE Portland?

   That was a poorly thought out question on my part. Bill Clinton was a Rhode Scholar, and we saw how well that worked. Honesty doesn’t appear to be their hallmark either.

   Good reporting=average speculation.

   Keep up the work.

3. I was there as well, sitting in the 2nd row. A good position to see Soto’s face. While taking her signals from HT, Soto was not effective at answering specific questions. I also question how a large deficit prediction from Mr. Awaad could turn into a 20M dollar surplus at the end of the 15-16 school year. And if they were in such a good position, why did they need to ask for 5M from the USP plaintiffs. I am also suspicious that the only person she spoke to about the budget prior to presenting to the board was the Superintendent. She also stated she didn’t know how Mr. Awaad came up with his numbers. She’s been there for 9 mos regardless of her proclaiming “I’m new” 9 mos is long enough to understand an accounting system. As with all that is TUSD, I am very cautious of the words that come from the dais. They must be robbing the Deseg monies, because they sure aren’t rushing to comply the USP.

4. There are allegations that the supposed surplus was created by taking money from classrooms, from desegregation monies, and from Title I funds. I suppose that we may find out who is telling the truth about these matters when the Arizona Auditor General audits the books. I have heard from some TUSD teachers they are operating on a shoestring and have to provide supplies for their classes on a regular basis. Meanwhile, Sanchez hired no less than five new central administrators and administrative assistants for each of them. And then we have the Early Learning Center (daycare) debacle. Sanchez’s child is able to attend this “center,” but how many students did not get needed supplies in their classrooms to make that happen.

   As readers found out yesterday TUSD has 180 unfilled positions advertised on its website. (Thank you Francis.) This is mid-October. What makes TUSD such a bad place to teach that so many positions are being advertised this late in the school year? I would assert that what is so awful about TUSD can be summed up with the statement that teaching and learning are not TUSD’s priorities. That is why so many families have left TUSD and why so many teachers do not choose to work there. The large class sizes, the failure to properly supply classrooms, and the failure to create a collegial environment where divergent solutions to problems are welcomed are the prime issues TUSD must address if it wants to attract and keep great teachers. Daycare is not on that list. In the districts where I taught teachers were able to use pre-tax dollars to pay for daycare services which really helped in making quality daycare affordable.

   It is strange that Sanchez would assert that this year’s budget was one he inherited since he was the superintendent all of last year and was instrumental in developing this budget. Why then has he been spending money in areas that were not included in the budget he developed without going to the Governing Board for approval of these budget adjustments?

5. I’m shocked that Adelita Grijalva didn’t ask for a couple million $ for her beloved La Raza studies! You know, the one that had all those textbooks in our schools that advocated violent revolution of La Raza rascists taking back the Southwest U.S. And the threats to “kill the gringos” and “send them back to Europe”. The AG threw them out last yr. but we’re hearing that pro-La Raza teachers, are sneaking them back in. No doubt, with the blessings of A. Grijalva.

6. David, you are trying so desperately to make Sanchez and your TUSD endorsed candidates look as though they walk on water- while Adelita Grijalva drowns in delusion. There is absolutely no neutrality on your part! You sat next to Darland’s campaign manager at the October 14th board meeting while she and you applauded and cheered every time the Grijalva-recruited and staged TEA group (less than a half dozen of the same old- “leadership-guard”) hailed to Sanchez and Adelita, asking that any criticism of the District be halted. This is far from leadership; they are sell-outs and followers. Followers, because they believe that the only power- base left for TEA is to sell out to Sanchez and Adelita. Wow! TEA has lost its way, which is why it is at an all-time low enrollment. There is no standing up for its members- just the superintendent and the board president. What was intolerable from the less than half dozen TEA followers, were the sequenced and rehearsed attacks on Hicks and Stegeman, contradicting their own demand that negativity stop. I am not a supporter of either Hicks or Stegeman but the staged attacks were unprofessional! TEA has reached a new very desperate low. My peers and I are embarrassed at their representation of teachers because they are far from representing the vast majority of PROFESSIONAL teachers. That is why recruitment is what it is.

   A real panic has been started within the Grijalva campaign for their darling Adelita, who may lose her 4th bid for re-election. They are scaring people into believing that if she is not elected and Hicks and Campos-Fleenor are- the world will end. David, you have embraced this panic and decided that you will do, as encouraged by Sanchez, along with Grijalva and Foster, whatever possible to support those who will just do more of what they have been doing; cheering on a run-away superintendent. You have cheered him on, based on the fact that he has invited you to a few TUSD meetings and made you feel like an “insider.” Somehow he has totally manipulated you. Your blogs reek of subjectivity and if that is what you want to provide to this community- I guess that is your choice, but know it is not serving TUSD.

   Before your cheers go any further, why don’t you dig deeper and explain how the Awwad projection of a 15 million dollar deficit and, his subordinate’s projection of a 20 million dollar reserve (surplus) can possibly be rectified? That is a total of a 35 million gain in dollars within a three week span. You just take the information at face value- and do not bother to go below the surface. Soto could not answer one single question about why her figures were so far from her former boss- Deputy Sept. Awaad. After his projections were made public, he was available to her for a full week before he left; why didn’t she meet with him so that she could understand his spreadsheets. OK; she didn’t. Why didn’t she download his work so that she could familiarize herself with his calculations rather than say, “I don’t know.” Or here is an idea, why don’t you suggest to HER that SHE call Awwad, rather than ask your readers to harass him while on the job for the first week or so. That is really an all-time low from you!

   David, what you should be doing is devoting some time in researching what has been accomplished by your endorsed three- term- board member- Adelita Grijalva. Take a look at the Curriculum Audit which shows that for the last many years there has been NO curriculum. And for 12 years; your endorsed candidate NEVER noticed? The Audit also reports that the District has not abided by the desegregation court order. Why wouldn’t a progressive guy like you care about that? Because you have been fooled! It is just something else that has not happened under Adelita’s watch. While there is a lot of attention being given to the potential deficit OR the surplus, the media never quite caught on to the total absence of an approved TUSD curriculum or to its defiance against a court order. These are reasons enough to unseat your endorsed candidate- AG.

   The financial mismanagement is just the topping on the TUSD collapsing cake. And now you are defending the new cake which was quickly baked-up and presented by Soto at the Board meeting? Have you ever seen a half-baked cake go flat? Let’s wait before you celebrate the surplus of 20 million dollars and get an independent auditor’s explanation of both the Awwad projection and the Soto surplus.

   The six superintendents who have served during Adelita’s 12 years did little to deal with curriculum, because the Board failed to give any direction in this area; little examination took place and few questions were asked and the most senior board member is just supposed to be left off the hook? This also applies to desegregation. David, David, David- and you call yourself someone who cares about education? During her three very long, “few-outcomes” terms, Stan Paz, Roger Pfeuffer, John Carrol, Elizabeth Fagan, John Pedicone, and finally H.T. Sanchez have sat at the TUSD helm. Pfeuffer was “interim” for about a year before he was straight-out appointed to the position. He was a lame duck going in and going out. John Carrol was interim supt. for what seemed only a minute; it was a few months; he was a figure-head and a total lame duck. Fagan was selected from a pool of qualified candidates and came in recognizably over- her- head. Pedicone thought he could run TUSD as he did Flowing Wells and he drastically failed, causing more damage than good during his upsetting tenure. Sanchez is another Fagan; in over- his- head and drowning, while convincing people like you that he once swam the English Channel (which, of course, he never has and never will); the point being: he lies his way out of every mistake he has made. Some call it PR; it is flat out lies. The last superintendent who dealt with curriculum was George Garcia and every educator in Tucson who has been around knows this to be a fact, yet Adelita holds on to the campaign ploy that by electing her we are somehow going to gain stability. God help us- if what she has served up during her 12 years is stability! Is Sanchez planning to leave town if she loses, as the rumors state? If that is the case, he should leave in either case. Who needs, or wants, a superintendent who constantly negotiates through ultimatums? What do the last 6 fiascos have in common? Adelita. If she had issues with any of the six at the point of hiring, she said nothing. Saying nothing has pretty much been her MO.

   The Efficiency Audit reports that the District is decades behind in managing its finances. The staff (Soto included) says that providing an updated budget is insurmountable and that the work requires hours and hours of manual labor. So be it. The audit says that the District can and should provide these reports to the Board, yet Soto has not provided these balance sheets/reports. She never provided updated budgets through the first year of her employment. Or, at least they were never made public. Would any of us write checks without balancing our checking accounts for a full year? Yet, not a peep out of Adelita on this terrible situation, except to pull off a press conference and counter what Deputy. Supt. Awwad had to say. Here we are wondering about the warning given to us by a real expert about a projected deficit. Remember, Awwad was promoted by Sanchez as his Deputy because of his expertise and experience. Is Sanchez now choking on his own decision? As Adelita’s pretty deep red signs have gone up all over Tucson, we can be reminded that TUSD is probably in the RED! One way or the other, the facts will be revealed- but not by this Board majority and not by this superintendent. David, you are right about not voting for Hicks or Campos-Fleenor. You are wrong about voting for Adelita Grijalva. There are 12 years of reasons not to vote for her but Hicks and Fleener-Campos are not worthy of a board seat. FYI, there are other liberals who are running and any of them beat the options of Hicks, Campos-Fleenor and Grijalva. Perhaps Darland will do fine, if she learns to wean herself away from Peterson and demonstrates that she is not totally influenced by Foster. Puttman-Hilgado is good but needs to listen more than she talks and Bernal might be good because he is not tainted. He is smart and is capable of learning quickly. Each of them is better than Hicks, Campos-Fleenor and Grijalva. Shame on you once again. Try some objectivity when you write about TUSD, otherwise, please do not waste our time.

   I got to see for myself as Sánchez’ wife walked around and talked up her husband, as she worked the crowd on Tuesday night just outside of the board room. It was obn

7. Wow!Now that’s what a real teacher does. Their homework! Awesome Teacher you got my vote. WELL DONE!!!

8. Awesome teacher, that was an amazing comment. Thank you! You did a great job connecting the dots and tying things together for those of us who have followed TUSD, but not quite as closely as you.

9. I have a question which could be answered by Grijalva, Stegman, Hicks, or Cuevas as sitting board members during the period since 2000. When I retired in 2000, we definitely had a curriculum. I spent many hours on that document, and encouraged my teachers to consult it, not just leave it on the shelf. During my nearly 30 years we went through a variety of curriculum documents, some of which I had contributed to or commented on at various points. When did the existing curriculum of 2000 get repealed, and why did that happen? There is a story in there that I don’t know about and which needs to be told.

10. That is an impressive post, “awesome teacher,” even if you are not my supporter. 🙂 Let me know if you ever want to chat. Maybe I could persuade you that Hicks, Campos-Fleenor, and I would not be bad for teachers — or maybe not — but either way I like people who are paying attention and that obviously includes you.

11. Georgia, part of the answer is that many things in TUSD fade away through inattention rather than explicit rejection. New curricula get adopted, like the three-way elementary math adoption under Maggie Shafer, that erode coherence. The switch to the Common Core or something close to it is also making much old curricula less relevant. To say that TUSD has had no curriculum is an exaggeration, but to say that over time it has dissolved into incoherent bits and pieces is not.

12. During TUSD’s appeal of Huppenthal’s decision that the MAS Program violated state law, there were several days of testimony. During the testimony it emerged that the Governing Board…over a period of quite a few years…had not exercised its legal obligation to review and approve TUSD’s curricular offerings. The focus of the appeal was the MAS program, but testimony clearly involved other subject areas as well as the English and History curricula. Judge Kowal cited this failure by a succession of TUSD Governing Boards in his decision upholding Huppenthal’s action.

13. Great post by Awesome Teacher, but I’d like to add a comment in response to this statement: “Perhaps Darland will do fine, if she learns to wean herself away from Peterson and demonstrates that she is not totally influenced by Foster.” I don’t think there is any reason to believe Darland could wean herself away from Pedersen or be independent of Foster (with Grijalva a very real presence in the background even if she is not re-elected). It’s about relationships: from what I’ve seen, Darland is deeply entrenched in this network and if she wins the election will be too indebted to them to be independent in any meaningful fashion. Two things about this group concern me deeply:
    1. Many things seem to indicate that they have not put enough checks on the power of the Superintendent during the last year. A board should support the Superintendent and not micromanage him, but it should not give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Damaging mistakes have been made in the last year that could have been avoided if the board had been fulfilling its proper function, and if Ms. Grijalva had felt she could use her “institutional knowledge” to provide better direction for a Superintendent who was new to Tucson and in his first real superintendency. TUSD is a very troubled district and not a good place for someone who hasn’t had a decade or more of experience leading a school district to “try their hand” at it. He needs more guidance and oversight than this group has seemed able to provide.
    2. It seems they cannot find a way of working constructively with Stegeman. I know it’s difficult, but for better or worse, he will remain on the board at least until the end of 2016. It’s going to be two long and counter-productive years if we have more of the almost complete polarization and lack of a collegial, collaborative leadership style we’ve had since Juarez and Foster came on the board.

    Among the liberal candidates, my support is going to Putnam-Hidalgo because she understands both of the above points and has character qualities that will enable her to work collaboratively with board members on both sides of the political spectrum to provide better guidance and oversight for the Superintendent. Whatever the outcome of the election, the Grijalva-Pedersen network will still have two members on the board until the end of 2016 (Juarez and Foster). They don’t need a third and for the reasons stated above I think it would be very bad for the district if they controlled the majority for another two years.

    Among the conservative candidates: I hope that voters understand that one of the things board members have to do is read and interpret spreadsheets and ensure that information given to them about the organization and its finances is accurate in every respect. This is not easy, especially in a context like TUSD, and it involves a skill set that can best be provided by someone with years of experience serving on non-profit boards and managing a business. I don’t think, given TUSD’s financial situation, it’s wise to eliminate Campos-Fleenor as a likely positive contributor to the board.

14. Awesome Teacher has done a solid job of offering some history and perspective on behalf of people like Safier who are relatively new observers of TUSD politics and operations. To add to her discourse, it needs to be pointed out that Fagen unwisely eliminated the department that oversaw curriculum not only to save money, but also because she wrongly thought those decisions should be made at the site level. As a result, TUSD lags behind all other local districts as it seeks to develop curricula that is aligned with state standards. This is actually an area where Sanchez and his team have done some solid work, building on the efforts that were begun by Pedicone and his deputy, Menconi.

    District administrators are responsible for day to day operations, but the Board sets policy that directs those operations. For far too long, predating the members of the current Board, but also including the, TUSD has been plagued by Board members who fail to grasp that critical distinction. They use their Board seats to advance personal agendas and spend next to no time learning the intricacies of the budget, the needs of the sites and the roles of all the people who are employed at both the district and site level. This distorted focus makes them easy prey for district administrators who count on their ignorance and consequent inability to ask questions about initiatives or policies those administrators want the Board to approve.

    Awesome Teacher is correct to describe Grijalva as perhaps the prime example of this dereliction of a Board member’s duty, but that is the model that has been followed by virtually every Board member during her sad and undistinguished tenure. Stegeman, despite other faults that cause him to be an ineffective and polarizing elected official, does get into the details of budgeting, policy and operations. It is his utter arrogance, unwillingness to consider alternative points of view and tendency to act more like a shadow superintendent than a Board member that cause him to be a negative presence on the Board…but there is no doubt that he does his homework and knows his facts. Grijalva has been on the Board longer than Stegeman and can’t approach his level of knowledge.

    It is telling that no Board member (except Stegeman, and he did so weakly and tentatively) questioned the extraordinary difference between the budgetary numbers presented to them first by Awwad and then by Soto. None of them (except Stegeman) have the knowledge base about the budget necessary to comment intelligently on those discrepancies! Putnam-Hidalgo’s wry public comments indicate that she had some inkling of how bizarre these contrasts were, but she should have been more descriptive and less clever in what she said during the public comment portion of the meeting.

    Awesome Teacher works in TUSD and has a good read on the true nature of the current superintendent, how he does business and how he treats people. Anyone who wants further insight into HT Sanchez and his record as an employer should look at the comments posted by Texans who worked with him as both a superintendent and a principal via this link: http://threesonorans.com/2014/09/25/ht-sanchez-gets-called-out-by-tusd-administrators-an-open-letter/#comment-91098. A leader’s past actions and how they dealt with both supporters and opponents are good indications of how they will behave in the present, especially when they face adversity.

    Given all these facts, the public needs to elect independent, hardworking and inquisitive Board members who will also work effectively and harmoniously with all their colleagues. Stegeman is a model for how to stay on top of the facts that Board members must master, but he is a horrible example of what it takes to foster consensus, compromise and direction for central office administration. So far, the only candidate who I see that fits this description is Putnam-Hidalgo, but I agree with previous commenters that some of the other candidates (Bernal, Campos-Fleenor and Darland) show promise. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that both the incumbents (Grijalva and Hicks) have demonstrated that they lack the work ethic, independence and understanding of their roles to serve as effective Board members.

15. Poor TUSD – at one time just a few decades ago or so, the district held so much prestige, so many resources, and so much neighborhood support. But somewhere along the way, it was squandered, bogged down by internal favoritism, rapid insider promotions, arrogance and mismanagement. For years, the district turned down outside advice, let no one dare interfere with its toxic politics and, with apparently no critical awareness, slid slowly and inexorably into today’s strange, school-closing situation. Despite many, many good people on board through the years, an absence of flexible decision-making has taken a terrible toll. Poor TUSD.

16. Think About It: “Stegeman is a model for how to stay on top of the facts that Board members must master, but he is a horrible example of what it takes to foster consensus, compromise and direction for central office administration.” I have never claimed to be perfect as a board member, but this claim suffers from much more repetition than evidence or examples. For example, with most of my fellow board members, past and especially present, meetings to discuss issues and resolve differences are almost always at my suggestion. Moreover, when I was president (and the same was true for Judy Burns), many more issues were pulled back to attempt to reach a higher degree of consensus before a vote. If the quoted criticism has more substance than simply shooting the messenger, then there should be examples behind it. Persons who watch board meetings regularly might say that the recent absence of collaboration comes substantially from the self-proclaimed board majority.

17. Stegeman’s protestations (which come forth quickly whenever he feels unjustly attacked by another commenter) point to exactly why he has done so much to contribute to the ill will and failure to find compromise on the Board during his tenure. He is quick to demand “evidence and examples” as if doing so will cause others to fail in their recall of how he conducted business while in both the majority and now in the minority. While he is far from being solely to blame, it is revisionist history at its finest for him to assert that he did more than the current Board president to promote dialogue and find consensus when he was in charge. Those were acrimonious times (as they are now) and he was just as deft and wiling as Grijalva (now the president) to advance the causes and interests of the majority at the expense of the minority.

    Rather than arguing every point, no matter how arcane and always seeking to have the last word, Stegeman and Grijalva should both do more to establish common ground. They are stubborn and relentless people who clearly dislike each other, both personally and politically. Juarez contributes to the current level of rancor with the frequent swipes he makes at other members, especially Hicks.

    It is also both amusing and morbid for Stegeman to cite the example of the late Judy Burns in defense of himself and his “leadership.” Long-time observers of TUSD recall that Burns and Grijalva were much more likely to be in accord during their time on the Board, while Stegeman has only been able to count on one constant ally: Hicks. It is a clever (yet disingenuous) diversion for Stegeman to ask all his doubters to produce laundry lists of incidents to prove his contributions to the failure of the entire Board to run TUSD with wisdom, foresight and a student-centered vision.

18. If you look at the data, Burns voted much more often on my side than on Grijalva’s side, when those votes were split. I’m not saying who was right: that’s just history verifiable for anyone who works back through the minutes. I am happy to make concessions, as I did when I recently voted for the short form of the strategic plan (the board never voted for the long form), although there are many things in it I dislike. For that matter, Grijalva has also sometimes made concessions and voted for things I know she did not agree with personally. The dysfunction in the board has become much worse since the 2012 election. And I am still waiting for the specific examples. I might even agree with some of them, but it is hard to agree with vapor. 🙂

19. I have watched this board for a very long time, I was a long time employee of TUSD, so I have seen how it functions , or rather how it doesn’t. I have seen Dr. Stegeman vote , not for what he feels is right , but what is truly right for students and staff, even above administration. Remember if the board would have approved what Dr. Stegeman asked for, we would not have this budget issue today. The dysfunction did worsen after the 2012 election. I experienced that personally with Cam Juarez. Dr. Sanchez is arrogant , and should not hold this position. The mere fact that we have all these questions should be enough for him to resign. The attacks on Mike Hicks are unwarranted, this man truly cares about what he is doing, however he cant get much done when the majority shoots down everything he tries to do because of a personal vendetta, and trust me it is personal. Use a little empathy and you might understand Stegeman and Hicks better. It has to be difficult to make a proposal , cast a vote , or even make a comment that will be ignored , voted down , or outright attacked by the majority , and yet not many are questioning the majorities motives. Grijalva , Foster, and Juarez should be ashamed, for it is their political wrangling that has brought this board and TUSD to its knees . I do believe people have begun to see the real Adelita Grijalva (and it isn’t pretty), but something still has to be done about Foster and Juarez, they have proven their worth is only has far as Grijalva can use them . Stegeman and Hicks have my support, as well as Fleenor, she has the knowledge and experience to prevent this from happening again . I wonder David , what will your support look like when this majority is run out of TUSD. The public has had it with them.

20. Safier mentions that 11 schools were closed and the district made “other deep cuts” because of the $17 million deficit. I recall very clearly what our site went through in the wake of the budget cuts — how parents, teachers, and staff struggled to patch our school’s operations together through any means we could lay our hands on while our petitions to 1010 went unanswered day after day and week after week. The only possible excuse for what happened on our site was that the district was flat out of money. And during this period Sanchez beefed up central administration, gave generous bonuses to his team, and increased the district’s reserve from $14 million to $20 million? What are we to think of this story? This is outrageous.

21. As a new TUSD retiree, if they just “discovered” some money they’ve had on hand for the past few years, I’d like one or more of the pay raises I DIDN’T get over my final 8 VERY demanding years of teaching in TUSD…Please!!!!

Comments are closed.