On Feb 25, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Elizabeth Brinkerhoff <ebrinker@somsd.k12.nj.us> wrote:
Good morning Ms. Malespina and Ms. Freedman,
I have been asked to set up an appointment with you, Dr. Ramos, Ms. Turner and Mr. Walston in regards to the action planning process. The meeting has been set for March 8 starting at 3:30 p.m. in Dr. Ramos’ office. Please confirm you will be able to attend. Thank you.
Liz Brinkerhoff
From: Lauren Freedman
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 1:41 PM
To: Elizabeth Brinkerhoff
Cc:
Subject: Re: action planning process
Hi Ms. Brinkerhoff,
Thank you for your email. We welcome the opportunity to meet about the action planning process. We would, however, like clarification on the purpose of this proposed meeting. What is the specific subject matter that Dr. Ramos would like to discuss?
Elissa and I are unfortunately unavailable on March 8. We would appreciate clarification of our questions (above), after which we would be happy to offer some alternate dates.
Sincerely,
Lauren Freedman, Ph.D.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Elizabeth Brinkerhoff wrote:
Dr. Freedman
The topic is the action planning process.
Would March 9 with a start time of 2:00 p.m. or 2:30 work? Please advise. Thank you.
Liz Brinkerhoff
Confidential Secretary to the Superintendent
South Orange Maplewood School District
525 Academy Street, Maplewood NJ
973-762-5600 ext. 1820
From: Elissa Malespina
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:34 AM
To: Elizabeth Brinkerhoff
Cc: Lauren Freedman; John Ramos
Subject: Re: action planning process
Hello all,
Because our previous request for clarification on the purpose of the proposed meeting was not addressed, I asked my action team members at our meeting last night if anyone had received a similar email from Dr. Ramos. They had not, and thus they could not clarify for me as to the purpose of this meeting. I am asking again that you please provide us with a detailed agenda as to what you would like to discuss in the meeting and why you are choosing to meet with only us so that both Dr. Freedman and I can be prepared for the meeting. As for the date you have offered, please understand that both Dr. Freedman and I are not available. We have work and childcare obligations, and finding time to meet is going to be hard. We are proposing that if you give us a properly detailed agenda, perhaps we can meet using either email, Skype or Google Hangout, or a conference call.
Look forward to hearing back from you soon,
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:03 PM, John Ramos <jramos@somsd.k12.nj.us> wrote:
Good afternoon.
Although I thought a private meeting would be more respectful, it is apparent that we will not be able to discuss the matter of concern face-to-face. So, respectfully, I will outline the issue herein.
The Action Planning process, including the team work, requires a level of confidentiality. This fact and the rationale were outlined during the two days of team training. Since the training, it has come to my attention that you discussed the planning days at some length on your Facebook page. Also, Ms. Freedman was involved in that discourse.
While what you do on social media is clearly your business, the point of the discussion I wanted to have with you concerns your intent to participate in good faith going forward.
We want you to be involved – that’s why you were invited. So, the question for both you and Ms. Freedman is:
Can and will you abide by the confidentiality norm of the action planning process OR would you prefer not to be involved because you cannot accommodate the norm of confidentiality?
This is, of course, your call. I will respect your decision. Please let me know so that we can plan accordingly.
Thank you,
John Ramos
From: Elissa Malespina
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 2:23 PM
To: John Ramos
Cc: Elizabeth Brinkerhoff; Lauren Freedman; Suzanne Turner
Subject: Re: action planning process
Dear Dr. Ramos:
Thank you for your email. We would very much like to continue to participate in the action-planning process, but need some clarification regarding your request for confidentiality. The subject of confidentiality was, at most, mentioned only in passing at the Saturday training we attended.
That said, one of the key goals of the strategic-planning process, as stated in the guiding principles is to be transparent. If the process is confidential, there is no transparency. There is, of course, the possibility that there will be topics that are discussed during the action-planning process that may require some level of confidentiality, but in our opinion, that should be the exception, not the norm.
It is completely our intention to participate in good faith moving forward, but if your understanding of "good faith" is a non-inclusive, opaque process that does not leave room for active, ongoing solicitation of stakeholder input and does not allow participants to provide ongoing updates to the public, it is the district that is not operating and participating in good faith.
Everyone in the community cares deeply about our school system—we are talking about our children’s future. As a community, we all deserve to determine the future of our schools in a manner that is as iterative and inclusive as possible. We point to districts like Princeton that have been very successful in opening up the dialogue to the community, with no such hesitation at transparency.
If indeed the district is unable to allow a truly open dialogue, we may be forced to step down and will then share the disturbing reasons that caused us to do so with the Facebook groups we participate in and moderate, among other media venues.
Here are our specific concerns and questions about the norm of confidentiality. First, what is encompassed by this "level of confidentiality"? For instance, are you requesting that facts we learn during this the planning meetings, site visits, and research, be kept confidential? Or, are you only requesting that we keep opinions expressed by participants confidential?
Second of course we have, and will continue to at all times, participate in this process in good faith. What are your concerns about our good-faith participation, and what in our social media postings are you construing as being in less than good faith?
We noticed that you apparently don't have an issue with Dr. Stornetta posting a blog piece regarding his participation in and opinions about the strategic direction committee. Dr. Stornetta's blog piece is indeed public and is also a central point of information on the district website. That leads us to fear that the "norm of confidentiality" is apparently subjective and selectively enforced.
Third, what is the duration of your norm of confidentiality? Is this confidentiality during the process itself, or are you expecting this confidentiality to continue after the action plans are complete?
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you in the action-planning process going forward.
Respectfully,
Lauren Freedman, Ph.D. and Elissa Malespina
From: John Ramos <jramos@somsd.k12.nj.us>
Date: March 7, 2016 at 6:12:08 PM EST
To: 'Elissa Malespina' <
Cc: Elizabeth Brinkerhoff <ebrinker@somsd.k12.nj.us>, Lauren Freedman <, Suzanne Turner <sturner@somsd.k12.nj.us>
Subject: RE: action planning process
Dear Ms. Malespina and Dr. Freedman,
Thank you for your response.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this personally, as was my original intention. Please contact Ms. Brinkerhoff at ebrinker@somsd.k12.nj.us if you would you like to schedule a meeting.
We view the action planning team meetings as a work in progress and have established the ground rule of confidentiality to ensure that teams can do their best work, and that the community does not get incomplete information from work still under development.
To clarify, the subject of confidentiality was mentioned multiple times on both days of the training, and is also in the ground rules document which the co-chairs each received to use with their teams. Specifically:
The work of the teams is to remain confidential until the action plans are fully developed and ready to be presented in a public forum. This will protect the integrity of the process, and ensure that all team members have the freedom to brainstorm and create, and consider all possible ideas, without concern for public criticism of work in progress or public expectation that every idea will make it to the final plans. There will be opportunities for the Board of Education and the community to review and comment on all action plans prior to any requests for approvals.
Certainly everyone on the team is free to talk about elements of the work with significant people in their lives. Our expectation is that the work and the process be kept private, meaning not be broadly published or publicly discussed while they are works in progress so as not to dissuade members of the working group from participating freely.
Transparency is indeed a priority of this process. That is why we have posted both unedited and synthesized data from the summit, why we held a series of community events to share the Strategic Direction and the process used to create it, and why we plan similar opportunities for public forums and community discussion for the action plans, once they are ready to be shared. I will be keeping the Board of Education and the community apprised of the progress of the action planning teams while they do their work.
In terms of Dr. Stornetta’s blog post – all members of the Strategic Direction Committee were invited to help with the public presentation of the Strategic Direction, once that committee’s work was complete and ready to be shared with the community. We asked Dr. Stornetta to speak specifically to the concept of Learner Centered, which was in the Strategic Direction, at several presentations. His blog post was a written version of his presentation.
As I stated in my previous e-mail, we want you to be involved – that is why you were invited to participate in action planning teams.
The question continues to be if you can and will abide by the confidentiality norm of the action planning process OR would prefer to not be involved because you cannot accommodate the norm of confidentiality.
Please let me know if you would like to meet with me to discuss this matter so that we may resolve this issue and move forward.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
John Ramos
From: Lauren Freedman
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 5:41 PM
To: John Ramos
Cc: Elissa Malespina; Elizabeth Brinkerhoff; Suzanne Turner
Subject: Re: action planning process
Dear Dr. Ramos:
Thank you for your reply. Your clarification is understood. Although we may not completely agree with the method, we do understand the perspective. As we stated before, it is very difficult for us to meet with you during the school day because of our professional and personal obligations, but thank you for again extending the offer.
For the record, until reading your response, neither Ms. Malespina nor I had seen the confidentiality statement provided to the committee chairs and must have not been in the room if it was discussed during the training session we attended. There was no purposeful intent on our part to disregard any confidentiality concerns. It simply was never mentioned to us until we received your first e-mail.
As you are aware, both of us are involved parents, community members and education advocates. We, along with other members of the strategic direction committees, continue to receive many questions from the public about the strategic planning and action planning process, what’s being discussed, and what progress is being made. This community expects open, transparent and forthright communication from the district and deserves to understand that they will not have a direct say in this process until the plans are complete. To that end, we highly recommend that the district make a public statement that explains the confidentiality norms you mention as they relate to the strategic direction process.
Ms. Malespina and I are both interested in continuing working with the action plan teams in this process. We have a lot to offer and are excited about helping to re-shape our district’s future. To do so in good faith, we also believe it is very important that the action plan committees solicit ideas and input from the more than 700 members of our Facebook group, “South Orange-Maplewood Cares About Schools” so that we can bring those ideas to our committees when we see it is pertinent, to help inform the conversation. In our opinion, this does not go against the norms of confidentiality.
Thank you.
Lauren Freedman, Ph.D.
Sent from my iPhone
From: John Ramos <jramos@somsd.k12.nj.us>
Date: March 10, 2016 at 4:54:18 PM EST
To: 'Lauren Freedman' <>
Cc: Elissa Malespina <>, Elizabeth Brinkerhoff <ebrinker@somsd.k12.nj.us>, Suzanne Turner <sturner@somsd.k12.nj.us>
Subject: RE: action planning process
Dear Dr. Freedman and Ms. Malespina,
Thank you for your response.
To clarify, the district has solicited ideas and input from the community at many points in the Strategic Planning process, and we intend to continue to do so at key points going forward.
We purposefully formed action planning teams with a balance of perspectives, trusting that the members would bring their perspectives and background knowledge to the process. People were asked to serve on action planning teams because of what they, individually, could bring to the process, and in some instances to formally include specific groups (SOMEA, ASCA, SEPAC, Achieve, Community Coalition on Race, etc.).
If an action planning team decides it needs more ideas or input, then the team can decide what information it needs, and how best to obtain it. Action planning teams are encouraged to conduct outside research, and are welcome to invite outside experts in to consult about specific issues. It may be that a team decides to ask for broad feedback from the community. But this should be a team decision, not the individual initiative of specific members.
Each planning team member will undoubtedly receive inspiration and ideas from conversations with members of whatever organizations to which they belong, as well as from conversations with individuals in their networks. Pertinent information or points of interest can of course be brought up in action planning meetings.
Still, I am compelled to reinforce the norms for participation on an action planning team. As I have stated previously, we view the action planning team meetings as a work in progress and have established the ground rule of confidentiality to ensure that teams can do their best work, and that the community does not get incomplete information from work still under development.
Our expectations are that:
1. The work and the process of
the action planning teams be kept private, meaning internal committee work is
not to be broadly published or publicly discussed while they are works in
progress.
2. Any information gathering
will be a team decision.
Please confirm your commitment to abide by
these expectations assuming that you wish to continue to participate on these
action planning teams. I appreciate your engagement. Please let me know of your decision as soon as possible.
Thank you,
John Ramos
No comments:
Post a Comment