Most New School Board Candidates Seem to Realize the Superintendent Needs Supervision

Caption: 1. From left to right: Laura Westemeyer (the only vote-no on the school bond candidate); J.P. Claussen (a vote-yes candidate); Shawn Eyestone (a vote-yes candidate vying for the two-year term vacated by LaTasha DeLoach); Karen Woltman (a won't say yes-or-no candidate and an attorney); Charlie Eastham (a vote-yes candidate vying for the two-year term vacated by LaTasha DeLoach); Janet Godwin (vote-yes candidate); and Ruthina Malone (a vote-yes candidate).

I’m surprised, even startled to learn that most of the new school board candidates running for office appear to realize that our district superintendent, Steve Murley, needs supervision. Proper oversight of district administration has clearly been lacking under ICCSD board president Chris Lynch, board director Brian Kirschling, and board director Paul Roesler, all of whom support the superintendent no matter what he does.

Recognizing that Supt. Murley needs supervision is huge, so I’m expecting that whichever new candidates get elected, they will argue with those already on the school board who feel that Murley does not need oversight and does not need to be made accountable for his poor listening skills (parents' comments and wishes are ignored), for the district's "retaliatory culture" cited by the state Department of Education, and for violating federal law regarding special education.

J.P. Claussen, for example, who is running for a four-year term, stated, “We need to have very clear goals, clear timelines, and pressure administration to follow through on goals. Not just reports filed. No bare minimums to get by. We have to go above and beyond and expect exceptional results.”

The sad part of this statement is that with respect to special education, we’re not getting by. Supt. Steve Murley is in violation of federal law. That’s not "getting by." It’s below "the bare minimum." What J.P. said, and he should know better, minimizes and denies just how serious the special education deficits really are.

Charlie Eastham, who is running for the remaining two years of LaTasha DeLoach’s term (she resigned effective July 14th, 2017, for medical reasons), said, “The board needs to be responsible that the district complies with whatever regulations apply. That may mean we need to provide a compliance officer who perhaps should respond directly to the board. If no compliance, then we need to investigate. We need to self-report. The board needs to put in place procedural steps to make sure we are in compliance. The situation has to be corrected. That is definitely a board function.”

Shawn Eyestone, who is also running for the remaining two years of LaTasha DeLoach’s term, weighed in: “The board is a policy-making group. We need to write down action steps for superintendent accountability. We should exceed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. We should go to the University of Iowa for guidance. If it’s brought to my attention that we’re not following appropriate practices [under the law], we should find an independent third party to identify the problem. Then we should own the problem if it’s our fault and make plans to fix it.”

Ironically, the Sunday (9/3/17) Gazette quotes Shawn Eyestone saying the exact opposite of what he said in the forum: "'We've talked about how the superintendent is the board's only employee,' said Eyestone, who works as an analytical lab manager [at Integrated DNA Technology]. 'As a manager, I would be out of a job if I treated my employees like the board treats the superintendent.'"

So the board treats the superintendent badly? He should have been fired, not given a contract extension and a five percent raise.

Between candidates Shawn Eyestone and Charlie Eastham for the remaining two years of LaTasha DeLoach's term, I'd vote for Charlie Eastham. He's for the bond, but he's not naive when it comes to the superintendent.

Janet Godwin: “If we’re not following federal or state law, we need to take swift action. I would expect the superintendent and the special education director to put together an action plan and get feedback from parents as to whether it’s working. We need to get to the root cause of the problem.”

I hope she didn’t blame teachers when she stated, “If we’re not following federal or state law, there’s a deeper problem at play. Is there a cultural problem?”

Ms. Godwin, why not look at the top of the food chain and ask yourself about the “retaliatory culture” mentioned in the Iowa Department of Education’s report on what’s wrong with special education at the Iowa City Community School District? Who fired the whistleblower, former homeless liaison Stephanie Van Housen, who reported the misuse of seclusion boxes when teachers put students in boxes for pouting and stepping out of line? The superintendent, that’s who.

In my opinion, as a top executive for American College Testing (ACT), Janet Godwin has a clear conflict of interest as a vendor to the Iowa City Community School District. She should not be running for the school board since her company’s financial interests are likely to be at odds with the district’s and the students’ financial interests.

Would she recuse herself in such a vote or only if a specific contract between ACT and the district were to come up? I asked her if she had a conflict of interest as a top executive for ACT, a school vendor, and running for the school board. She said there’s no contract now between ACT and the district and she would recuse herself if a contract came up. But what, for example, would her position be with respect to funds for advanced classes for gifted students likely to take the ACT versus funds for vocational classes for students unlikely to take the ACT exams? Advanced classes already tend to be favored at present over vocational and technical classes, classes which are nearly nonexistent at present, for students who like to work with their hands and need to get a job out of high school because they can’t afford college, which continues to increase in price, or they’re not comfortable in an academic environment.

Ruthina Malone: “What would I do if I found out we were violating a federal or state mandate? For me, it comes back to trust. Trust is the issue. To rebuild trust, we need to openly and transparently share failures and let parents know we understand we’re accountable for those violations. It’s not acceptable to miss the mark. How do we hold the district accountable? I’d want information from parents, children, and teachers.”

Mrs. Malone gives no specific plan for making the district superintendent accountable. I worry that since her husband is an art teacher in the district and there’s a recognized retaliatory culture in the district, her husband’s job could be threatened if she didn’t vote as Supt. Murley wanted her to. Would it surprise you to learn that a past board member resigned because of a threat to a teacher who is the board member’s significant other?

I asked Ruthina about her husband’s status and how that might impact her service, if she’s elected to the board. She said she’d had that conversation with her husband, and said the district had better not try to interfere with her husband’s job. It’s reassuring to know she wouldn’t immediately cave if the superintendent threatened her husband’s job, but I wonder if she knows just how endemic the district's "retaliatory culture" is.

For clarity of vision regarding the bond vote (Laura Westemeyer is the only no vote on the school bond) and for holding the district accountable on special education and other issues regarding the superintendent and the physical plant director accountable, I’m endorsing and voting for four-year candidates Laura Westemeyer and Karen Woltman, an attorney. Laura is passionate about special-needs children and knows what it takes to meet ADA guidelines. Karen is an attorney. Given the district's ignorance about what is legal and what isn't, we need another attorney who is as clear and precise as Karen is.

We’re losing Chris Liebig, a UI law professor and an outstanding voice on the board. Since the board president and other board directors in board president Chris Lynch’s camp believe that board policy of not allowing any comments critical of the district superintendent supersedes the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, we need another attorney on the board. Such illegal nonsense needs to be dispensed with in no uncertain terms. We need board members with the clarity of vision and the legal understanding to know that of course, the First Amendment supersedes any silly idea of the district or board directors that suppressing free speech is their right.

Board director Brian Kirschling threatened Natalie Cruden, a special needs parent, with “legal action” if she criticized the superintendent. This sort of thing needs to stop. Trust in the district administration and the board can not be rebuilt if board directors are threatening parents’ free speech rights with legal intimidation. Bullying and suppression of free speech is no way to increase trust, and most of the new board candidates agreed that trust is a major issue for the current ICCSD administration we have now. It's also a reason the school bond may fail.

Not everyone is naive enough to think that giving Supt. Murley and physical plant director Duane Van Hemert $191.5 million to spend is a good idea, given their cost overruns and failure to make four new playgrounds compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.