Attorney for TPSB Chris Moody's Opinion Letter to the Editor
Hindsight is 20/20
Mr. Moody has made it clear on Facebook that he believes Ms. Morris to be "ugly and negative." Really? What would you consider this letter to the editor by Chris Moody?
August 30, 2006
No-response policy is best
Dear Editor,
This is in response to your editorial last week about the Tangipahoa School Board’s policy of “not responding to public input.” You suggest that the policy be changed since it leads people to think that the system is hiding something.
I have been the engaged legal counsel for the TPSS for more than 20 years, and I can attest to the fact that the current policy has merit.
It was first adopted in a time when we had labor unrest, including litigation, following a cut in pay. To keep from “negotiating” the issues in a public meeting, the board simply found it advisable to listen to the points made in public input without comment.
The policy has worked well and most of the situations, too when members of the public complain about a particular situation.
Often parents complain that their child was not picked as a cheerleader or they disagree with the dress code. If the board takes the time to “respond” then the meeting becomes a long debate.
Instead, the system has a very organized system for handling grievances from students, parents and employees. Every complaint gets handled at the appropriate level, starting, for instance, with the classroom teacher. If the complainant is not satisfied then the person can appeal to the next level. The school board is the last appeal step in this process.
The system works so well that we only rarely get grievances that reach the board level. Some people that do not wish to wait for this process use public input instead to vent their feelings. This unfortunately prolongs the public meetings over what is typically a very individual problem.
In recent months, Ms. Pat Morris, the local NAACP President, has been attending every meeting and utilizing her rights to speak at public input.
Ms. Morris typically reads from a prepared text. In a loud and aggressive manner she will make multiple, unsubstantiated and outrageous allegations of wrong-doing. She will, for instance complain, that the system “is not in compliance with the Federal Court Desegregation Order,” without being specific. Or she will complain about “nepotism” at the central office also without specifics.
At the last meeting she had a laundry list of new issues. Some of these were heard the first time by the board and the superintendent. One, for instance, was a demand to know “why a recent burglary at Hammond High was not reported and why the FBI was not contacted?” Well, the burglary was reported and it was being investigated and was being investigated by the sheriff’s office. Why would we contact the FBI for this kind of case? The “central office” nepotism allegation was resolved and found to be without merit by the state board of ethics.
Despite multiple inflammatory statements made by Ms. Morris to the contrary, the school system IS in compliance with the consent decree. The system is carefully following all of the requirements of the objective hiring criteria. This individual is constantly making threats of litigation and filing ethics complaints without merit. Her organization is in ongoing litigation against the system. Why should the board talk to her?
If the board were to start immedicable responding to remarks made by Ms. Morris and others like her, I see several potential problems. One concern is not having all the facts before making a “public statement” that might well be used against the system.
Another problem is opening a back-and-forth debate with a person that is difficult to communicate with or even irrational. This occurred a few meetings ago when Ms. Morris injected herself into the discussion of an agenda item (with the indulgence of the board). The results were not pretty to watch.The board and the staff do listen to all public input and almost always respond to the person making a complaint, but they do so after the meeting.
If in the future your paper is concerned about anything brought up in a meeting by Ms. Morris, or anyone like her, the administration will be happy to respond after the meeting is over.
In the meantime, I suggest that the board continue to ignore her and follow their long-standing policy.