Tuesday, May 08, 2007
LRSD employee speaks out against Lynch
Of all the stupidest, drooling fool moronic and boneheaded ad hominem arguments I have ever heard, this one is the looniest ever. I suppose, by your non-logic, Judge Eislie is not entitled to an opinion either. Have my opinions cut so close to the bone that you would stoop to such ridiculous gibberish just to shut me up?
Unless you are employed by the district, as I am, then you should be offering no instructions to "Stop This Outrageous Petulance."
The fact is, Dr. Brooks is guilty of the proposed charges, and more. On more than one occasion, he has attended faculty meetings at my school, as well as others, and made the comment "If you are caught making negative commments about this school district in public, you will be fired on the spot." Other "infractions" that apparently warrant his intimidation and bullying of employees includes joining, or belonging to the teachers' union and questioning policy or procedure.
It seems a shame to wake you up from a sound sleep, but out in the real world, folks are fired every day for speaking against their employers. There is a generally recognized duty not to badmouth the company. While not conceding the factualness of your claim, I wonder if what Brooks says squares with the articulated policy of the district. In any case, I would expect dates, times and places and the specific names of witnesses. Even Roy Brooks should enjoy the right to confront his accusers. It may be that Mr. Brooks was attempting to reign in HOW policies were being questioned. Of course, I would never insinuate that you are some kind of hothead or general nutcase.
It is a fact that he did direct the school district's testing coordinator to falsify district test scores in an attempt to influence the court desegregation case, and when she refused to compromise her, AND the school district's integrities, he fired her.
I have strongly criticized Dr. Brooks in this matter. My memory is a bit vague, so some smarter person help me out. Is “falsity” a bit strong of an allegation. I think that “omit” might be closer to the truth, and there is a difference. Dr. Mitchell’s Bill of Particulars does not give this as a cause for suspension.
Dr. Brooks then committed the alleged insubordination by not immediately hiring DeJarnette back as the school board [as] instructed, instead following his own timeline.
While not wishing to split hairs, there is a reasonable argument over the definition of “immediately.” This is a complaint of Dr. Mitchell, and is open to discussion.
Your editorial in today's Democrat-Gazette mentions an abuse of power. You are certainly right about that, but you are looking in the wrong direction. Brooks uses his position of superintendent to intimidate his subordinates, and that, Sir, is no way to lead a company, much less a school district in which he should be the highest example of citizenship for the students.
Yes, and you certainly are a shining example of reasonable argument, an open mind and a cheery disposition. Again, acts of intimidation should be documented by date, time, location, and specific named witnesses.
Furthermore, without being tedious, let me again assert that, out here in the real world where people work for a living and are held accountable, there is such a thing as a corrective letter issued at the time of the alleged infraction and inserted into the employee’s file. I may be wrong, but Mitchell’s failure to reference such documents tells me that they do not exist.
You say that the superintendent deserves to know the exact charges against him; trust me, he knows EXACTLY what he has done. Personally, I really don't care if his departure is "dignified" or not; he just needs to leave.
Thank you Thomas D’Torquemada. How foolish of me. He KNOWS the offenses of which he is accused. Hell, Roy Brooks should denounce himself.
I have no idea whether or not Dr. Brooks is a good superintendent. I just know that he ought to get as much due process as your typical mass murderer. But what do I know? I’m just a high school graduate and not even an employee of the GREATEST SCHOOL DISTRICT ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH.
Have the radio waves done something bad to your brain ? I normally agree with you on most topics but then I read this:
It seems a shame to wake you up from a sound sleep, but out in the real world, folks are fired every day for speaking against their employers. There is a generally recognized duty not to badmouth the company.
That is somewhat correct - Lets say I work for Hoover, Inc. and I say on TV, "Hoovers suck!" I suppose they could fire me. A company does not have to allow an employee to act in such a way they have no utility for the company.
But -- if I work for the US Gov't, State, City, or even the Little Rock School Board -- my employer may not condition my public employment on my exercise of my First Amendment rights. At least thats what the US Supreme Court has opined (Connick v. Myers) In another case they said: "We conclude that policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights."
I'll let this one slide - next time I'm going to have to demand you hand over your ACLU card though....
It was wholly a pleasure to see that you have been passing through my humble blog and your mercy is much appreciated.
You do have a point, I suppose. Might I suggest that it is a reasonable policy to restrict a worker's public statement. Of course, there is an affirmative obligation to expose wrongdoing.
I am not much inclined to cut LRSD folks much slack. It is a cesspool of incompetence and stupidity.
Thanks for the gentle correction.
Links to this post: