More Of The Same Begets More Of The Same

Someone needs to get a clue to all of the administrators within the Hillsborough County Public Schools. When there is a problem brewing, relegating and isolating the problem to one person or one department is like gluing the lid on a pressure cooker. Eventually, the whole mess is going to explode like hell. They may get away with it for years, but the fallout from this practice is costly for human resources.

In the HASA April 09 minutes, there is a recommendation that if a person speaks to the Board with a complaint, the speaker should be "referred to the appropriate level supervisor".

Someone set me straight on this, but it has been my experience that, for the most part, when someone brings a complaint to the Board, it is after they have exhausted all other avenues to address their concerns to no avail. By the time they have worked up the emotional energy to go speak to the board, they are usually at their wit's end. Why send them back to the very people that they have been dealing with already?


Since the Erwin case has been well exposed as an example of this type of narrow-minded thinking, take another look at what happened at the latest Alafia Elementary debacle. According to the information I have, both Ken Otero and Sherrie Sikes had been involved with that issue for quite some time. Both of those people, by all accounts that I know of, are fairly well respected for their administrative abilities. Why send people back to them if they can't solve the problem?

Look at what happened when "town meetings" were held. If sending this problem back to the proper supervisors was such a good idea, why did the Superintendent show up to answer questions?

What may be the elephant, or the 600 pound gorilla, in the room that no one is willing to expose, is that there are hidden agendas and covert exertions that work against common sense solutions. As an example, suppose there is an ongoing legal battle that the District is engaged in, unknown to most people. Along comes another incident that is similar to the one under litigation. To expose this new incident would be jeopardizing the liability of the ongoing case, especially if the ongoing case is dealing with alleged systemically repeated problems. Under this type of situation, the District's reaction may seem drastic to what, to all involved, is perceived as a real "isolated incident".

I have seen this several times in my limited experience. I will repeat what I have said before: When decisions at the table do not make sense, the real decision makers are not sitting at the table.

Anyone else see it that way?