Attorney for TPSB Chris Moody's Opinion Letter to the Editor
Hindsight is 20/20
Ever since Pat Morris challenged the School Board on various wrong-doings, she has been met with contention and many (including Board members) have tried to discredit her in the media. This letter, written by TPSS Attorney Chris Moody is one of those attempts to discredit Ms. Morris and has been dismantled by our group in order that you may see the lies and deceit perpetrated by him toward Ms. Morris.
Put yourself in her shoes for a moment. As a private citizen, if you raised allegations of wrong-doings before an elected board and they attacked you in the media, called you names, made your public right of input last on every agenda and then limited your words to 3 minutes often times ignoring you, walking out in the middle of your prepared text, how would you feel right about now?
She's proven everything she's alleged to be true thus far.
Presently, the propoganda to discredit Ms. Morris is concerning the lead levels in the water in Kentwood. With the track history of the School Board, and considering the victories of Ms. Morris, we ask the following questions:
- Is she right, yet again?
- Has she been trying to tell the School Board about the problem and they've chosen to ignore her as their attorney Chris Moody advises?
- Why do School Board members claim they've tried to come to the table to settle the issues when clearly, according to their attorney, they have been advised to ignore her, or to consider her irrational?
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. (Even the newspaper questioned the tactics of the School Board toward Ms. Morris. Mr. Moody's letter was in response to it.)
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. (Don't you mean, "vent" Mr. Moody?)
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. (Ms. Morris was neither loud nor aggressive and often challenged TPSS on their accountability which enraged them. In particular meetings, Mr. Link got up and walked out in the middle of Ms. Morris' public input. We consider that rude and unbefitting an elected official. She had prepared text because she was limited to 3 minutes).
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. (Ms. Morris has already proved the TPSS is out of compliance with the Federal Court Deseg Order. There were many, many areas of non-compliance. Ms. Morris was quite specific over a period of time but the Board in limiting public input to 3 minutes would not avail Ms. Morris the opportunity to be specific except in small bite sized pieces over a period of time. The Board refused to come to the table to discuss the issues with Ms. Morris and in doing so has created the climate we are now in with the Federal Judge. Had this Board, Mr. Kolwe and Mr. Moody come to the table in the beginning, this case would have been resolved by now but in their narcissism and arrogance - as this letter exudes - they have chosen once again to buck the system and ignore the law.)
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. As of now we still have no police report and School Board Member Al Link was fined by the Ethics Board for voting to alter policy to accomodate his daughter' getting a principalship job (behind closed doors).
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? (Really? How come the judge ruled against TPSS on this very issue? In fact this very judge issued a 27 page ruling that says the objective hiring criteria is "seriously flawed.")
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.(Charging that Ms. Morris is irrational was and is still part of the propoganda doled out by the Board to the media. In addition, Ms. Morris did not "inject herself into the discussion of an agenda item," but was asked to come to the podium by Mr. Ridgel to answer questions posed by Mr. Ridgel as he was stating the school board needed to hire an attorney who was familiar with deseg law, because Ms. Morris had brought some valid points before the board.)
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.(To do so will mean the Board is "off-the-record" and isn't that convenient?)
In the meantime, I suggest that the board continue to ignore her and follow their long-standing policy. (The Board should rethink this policy. Citizens have a right to hold accountable their elected officials. While Mr. Kolwe is not an elected official, it is still the rights of citizenry to hold the Superintendent accountable, as well. The ignoring policy is certainly not working as Ms. Morris has proven everything she set out to prove.)