submitted by ‘Interested Mom’
“I would like to reply to WoodstockMom asking her where in the letter does it say we could opt out of the call system or that the PTO would be using it. In the letter Dr. Baron states that it would be for emergencies only.”
I think this letter describes how Dr. Baran envisioned the ALERTNOW would be used. However, there’s no reason to believe the system would be limited to only ‘emergencies’ and early dismissals. Certainly most who support the school system looked at the referendum as an emergency. I certainly did. This is why we started fighting this recall with a 200+ petition rather than having a town hall meeting vote. The robo-call didn’t advocate a position; it just asked people to go vote.
The letter states that the system will be used by the district for emergency notifications and weather related early dismissals ONLY. Dr. Baran’s words need to mean something.
Don’t see the word “only” in that letter. It doesn not say that it will ONLY be used for emergencies as far as I see. In case I’m missing it, can you point it out to me?
Also, those say how the “district” and “school” will be using it, not how the PTO will be using it.
Interested Mom - I believe if you go back to WoodstockMom’s comment, you’ll realize that she said there was a form that was sent home. What you have posted is a letter, so I think there are two different things that you are referring to. I’m guessing the ‘form’ would have come home in that huge package that parents normally get the first week of school. Also, I have to second Teacher’s POV, there is nothing in this letter that says ‘only’ anything as far as usage. On another note, I do want to point out that one of the reasons the Superintendent does use for using this system is “to enhance parental communication.” Here is another technique/method that the school system/BOE is using to increase the paths of communications to the district.
Thanks to the previous posters for pointing out to Intested Mom that the FORM sent home and returned by parents is what dictated whether or not a family participated in the use of the system. Parents had the option of sending the messages to phone only, email or both. Parents who did not return the form were not keyed in to the system. This fall, the form will be sent out for the new school year. If you were off-put by the reminder to vote call and do not wish to receive like notices, you merely have to neglect to turn in your form. The PTO will surely honor your point of view and not submit your information to the vendor.
The letter does not state ONLY used for emergencies. It merely states confirmed ways in which the system would be used.
A neighboring town’s PTO utilizes the same system and has even expanded it to allow teacher group notification calls, academic group calls, etc. The system has myriad ways in which it can be utilized for communication. Personally, I appreciate that I am given the reminders when it’s budget/referendum time, as our busy life sometimes can cause things to fall through the cracks.
The word only is the last word in the sentence that starts with how the district will use the system. It is by the second check mark and is the last word in the sentence which to me mneans it modifies the entire sentence. And while the letter does not limit how the PTO may use the sytem, nor does it inform us that the PTO will be using it. The referendum was not an evacuation, lockdown or other emergency situation.
WoodstockMom,
As a matter of fact in Dr. Baron’s letter he did state that the district would be using the system for “Emergency Notification and Early dismissal due to inclement weather ONLY”. What form are you referring to? If you could please post it. I did not return any form however, I DID recieve phone calls all year including the reminder to vote.
I know that the PTO paid for this system. Who is inputting all the kids emergency contact #’s, e-mails, etc? Is it the school or the PTO? I just want to clarify what you are referring to.
Does the PTO have direct access to in information provided to the vendor?
This letter does not limit the use of the system. I am at a loss to see how anyone can read it this way because in plain English it does not.
Can someone actually be offended that they were notified of a pending vote?
It sounds like a lot of sour grapes. And most people are OK with it, as evidenced by the PTO signs on the lawns.
Out of curiosity, are the people that are so upset about the PTO getting out the vote ok with the petitioners trying to throw out past elections for the BoE and essentially hold a recall vote when a recall is not allowed? If so, it seems very hypocritical to me.
Interested Mom - You must be reading a different letter from Dr. Baran than is posted here. Dr. Baran definitely does not say the system will be used for “Emergency Notification and Early dismissal due to inclement weather ONLY” (your quotes - not mine). The ‘only’ you are referring to is applied to the early dismissal due to inclement weather - meaning, the district will not be using to call system to notify parents/guardians of early dismissals that are normally scheduled, such as half days. To correctly read the statement, the emergency notifications and the inclement weather early dismissals are individual bullet (check) points. So the ‘only’ applies distinctly to the inclement weather bullet point (check) point. In order to have the ‘only’ apply to both points it would have to have been in the statement “The district will be utilizing ALERTNOW for:” It is a boring point of grammar but the ‘only’ definitely qualifies the inclement weather line and not the emergency notifications line.
The letter clearly endorses the choice of the alert system as a tool to enhance parental communication. Voting reminder notifications definitely qualify as something that would be increasing the communication from the district to parents.
From the perspective of confidential contact information, I feel safe in saying that the PTO does NOT have access to those lists. School district staff are the one who enter the information into the system. That is a fairly clear point of law. The alert systems are designed so that the notification destinations (phone numbers) are entered and stored in the system. The notification is recorded and securely sent to the system which then which then sends that recording to the previously stored phone numbers.
The word ‘only’ means that they will only alert for early dismissals due to inclement weather, not on individual bases. The fact that ’school uses’ is listed directly after the word ‘only’ indicates that it can be used for other purposes other than emergencies.
Also, as I said, it lists district use and school use only. It does not comment on use by other parties (such as the party that bought the system).
“The PTO will surely honor your point of view and not submit your information to the vendor.”–WoodstockMom
This is copied and pasted from entry #5 (referring to the call system)
Thank-you Becki for clearing up my grammer woes in the use of only. I do see your point. Maybe someone from the PTO could chime in a let us know exactly the intentions and usage of the call system pertaining to the PTO are. Also, the process by which a call is recorded.
I am glad that Becki feels safe in saying that the PTO does NOT have access to those lists. I however, do not feel safe in saying that. I would like someone to post “the form” in question if they could. Could I go to the school and ask for it?
I have not recieved answers that have stopped my concerns. I would really appreciate it if the PTO would clarify for us.
Interested Mom - Could you please clarify what your specific concerns are?
While clarifying concerns, please consider whether the call system ought to be used by the PTO to inform as many households as possible about:
1) An imminent threat to students (think of one - let’s say an escaped child molester in town or something extreme);
2) An issue negatively affecting education, but NOT considered ‘political’ by any group;
3) An issue which YOU believe negatively affects education, but others believe does not; or
4) A regular election in Town.
NOW - Numbers 2,3 and 4 contain ONLY the message to “Please remember to Vote!”
Regardless of letters, rules and all these petty technicalities - what is the ACTUAL HARM of using the system to remind voters to please vote?
I’ve too been pondering this robo call issue and per my usual outlook, I come down in the middle.
While I do not think the PTO robo calls violated campaign finance laws because they were a general reminder and did not advocate a particular position, I do see room for some parents to be upset that they were not initially made aware that the call system would be used in such a manner. Some parents may not be pleased and/or supportive of the idea that their donations are used for any political purpose rather than going directly to the children.
To me, it’s not a huge deal, but it’s a situation that can easily be rectified in one of three ways: 1.)amend the letter for its next distribution on the first day of school this August. Add a check mark/bullet point to read words to the effect, “The District will be using ALERTNOW for general reminders to vote when there is a referendum that may impact your child’s school”. 2.) Ask the town to adopt the robo system (instead of the District/school/PTO) and implement it for general vote reminders for every referendum. This would ensure that all voters and parents in Woodstock receive a reminder to vote and not just K-8 parents. 3.) Do not use the robo call system for “get out the vote” reminders anymore.
I think #3 is throwing the baby out with the bath water, but it’s an option nonetheless.
So in summary, my take on this is that while I do not feel that a law was broken, I do think that this can all be avoided in the future with clearer communication at the very least. If I could wave my magic wand, I would prefer to see the town take over the robo calls for vote reminders. We get such a low turnout for some of these votes. I can’t see the harm in attempting to raise voter awareness in general townwide.
Here is my list of issues with the Robo call system and the PTO flyers:
1. The PTO is a membership organization with its own way of contacting its members through e-mail, phone calls etc. Since it collects membership dues, it should not use the school’s system.
2. Schools should remain political free! Our children should not be used as political messangers. Our kids go to school to get educated. Does anyone remember the full page shoppers guide ad they placed for the prop 46 vote? And the flyers stuffed in backpacks at school?
3. PTO took a stance. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read between the lines of the flyer or the phone calls.
4. My child was told “tell your parents to vote NO” when the fyler was handed out. If it wasn’t in the school to begin with, this would have never happened. OR employees of the school should act in a more professional manner.
I did not see any “remember to vote” for the Presidential elections.
5. The kids fundraised for a political stance.
6. Would the school have allowed the PTO to do this if the PTO disagreed with the BOE position?
7. We, as taxpayers, are paying the teachers and TA’s for passinng out these flyers. If you figure all the classrooms in the K-8 system, this costs us a signifigant amount. Then for the teachers and TA’s to tell the kids to tell thier parents how to vote is unprofessional.
8. Kids don’t understand this, keep them out of it.
9. I want to be assured that this won’t happen again in November.
10. The PTO is allowed to use school copiers.
11. There are national issues that I feel strongly about. Can I go to the school, use school copiers, and pass out flyers?
12. The PTO gave the Robosystem to the school as a gift for the saftey of our children? Are we to understand that there was strings attached? The PTO should have let thier intentions be known before they gave the gift. I know that Thompson uses it for a variety of uses, including thier PTO functions.
13. I do not feel confident that the school is keeping my child’s information safe. If they allow the PTO to access it, then who else? The call I recieved to vote was not from Dr. Baron but, the president of the PTO.
14. Just like the school is a “drug free zone” it should also be a “political free zone”
I am still waiting for someone from the PTO to chime in and explain this. Yes, I do believe the PTO does my great things for the school. As does the WEF, booster club, and many other organization, so were they during this process? Oh, I remember, it is either in thier bylaws or they are just smart enough to keep the kids out of an adult issue!
Item number four concerns me in that it should never happen. There should not be a verbal indication given to a student which way to vote when a reminder flier is handed to them.
Having said that I really have no way to verify the veracity of this claim.
I do think a policy will likely be created prohibiting political advocacy materials to be handed out on school grounds by adults in the future. But I also believe that flyers and other means will continue to be used to remind parents to vote in upcoming referendums that have to do with the school system.
Quite frankly I consider any individual’s connection to the PTO’s position when they made that call a non-issue.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BOE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BOE in any way.
I talked to the appropriate people at the school regarding this. Dr. Baron is also aware of this. So you can check with him to check the veracity of this claim.
I have talked to several other parents and thier children were told the same thing. I do, however, know my child was told that. I know the class, person responsible etc etc. I AM NOT happy about it. I don’t think it is something that should be shrugged off.
I am hoping that the school will take appropriate actions to the person responsible.
I have decided not to file a SEEC claim at this time in the hopes that the school will handle it. As I said again, if the flyer was never in the school, the incident would never have happened. I do hold the PTO responsible. We all know that politics in this town get very heated and our children should be left out of it.
Yes, the children should definitely be left out of it. As to the remaining issues, I hope everyone realizes that even assuming that political messages were communicated improperly by the PTO, these Parents deserve full respect and credit: they can think for themselves and are able to understand and sort through all manner of incoming political messages intended to persuade them to vote a certain way.
Even assuming the extreme - that the PTO communicated purely Political messages and urged ‘Vote No!’ using robo-call, all of these messages were communicated to adult voters capable of understanding both side’s arguments and capable of thinking for themselves. No one commanded a group of empty-headed, gullible and ignorant citizens to go forth and do their bidding (as several articles on wt.com seem to suggest - see the latest by Ms. Rapose suggesting that only THEY knew what was really going on, while the rest of us ignorant, naive sheep relied exclusively on Cafe website for all our propaganda…).
Remember - the group at woodstocktruth.com tries their best to SET THE TONE of the discussion and too often we play into their hands by allowing them to define the argument parameters and, more importantly, to move past (without challenge) the numerous flawed assumptions contained in their ‘characterization’ of the issues. Critical thinking should be applied to all arguments from either side…
I don’t think the children should be involved either. As a bus driver in the school system and an ardent supporter of the ‘vote no’ position, I very carefully avoided political discussions with the kids on my bus. I also would never think of handing out flyers from the bus. I am very mindful of the situation.
I do have to say that, either the day before the referendum or the day of, my kids (middle/academy run) were having their own discussion regarding the proposed ordinance. I stayed out of it until it started getting rather heated. At the point that one of my kids said that Dr. Baran sent out an email that said everybody had to vote ‘yes’ otherwise a lot of teachers were going to lose their jobs, I basically shut down the conversation. I didn’t state a position, but I did say that Dr. Baran would never send out an email like that (knowing he wouldn’t cross that ethical boundary).
It was eye opening, once again, to get such a clear window into the homes of some of my riders. These kids, for the most part are mimicking what they hear in their own living and dining rooms.
What is sad is that the information can be so inaccurate. That is one of the reasons I was so relieved that the PTO felt the situation merited their support. The time frame imposed on the community did not allow a whole lot of time for discussion, education and was really quite disrespectful to all of us.
Interested, You really seem to be wound up. I wouldn’t ever get a reminder to vote call because I don’t have kids that are school age anymore, but I would suppose there wouldn’t have been a need to remind anybody to vote for the presidential election. People were expecting that vote to occur. It was in the normal expectation for everybody.
One of the things that I was particularly offended by the “Vote YES for Education” folks is that they deliberately took advantage of the fact that this vote was going to be held completely outside of the normal election cycle. They did not make any effort to conduct a community discussion or educate any of us outside their small circle of proponents as to what the real issue and/or need was that it required them to force such a restrictive time table on us.
You’ve got a pretty long laundry list there of things that concern you, but it doesn’t look like you have made much of an attempt to determine if the information you are basing your position on is actually sound. I’m hearing a lot of expectations from you, but not much willingness to be reasonable about those expectations being put in context.
Interested,
I looked into the problem you mentioned with a staff member telling the children how to vote. It was corrected on the spot by another staff member in the room as soon as it started occurring.
I do not know any of the names involved, nor do I care to (admin, I will have to leave the conversation if anyone mentions any names on this). (Kevin, since names would be unverified we would have to delete any names mentioned. Admin) Having said that, as I stated the problem was corrected on the spot and properly reported to the administration. That is all I can say publicly about this as it is a personnel issue but from speaking with the administration it sounds like the issue was handled quickly and decisively. Sometimes the best measure of an organization’s effectiveness can be measured by how they react to problems (they are inevitable). From what I heard, they handled the situation very well.
While I understand your concern that this never would have happened if the note were not distributed, this can be said for any number of events at a school. Even a field trip or sporting event can result in a whole host of possible problems but I have no interest in suggesting we cancel those either. Informing people of votes on pending educational issues is an extremely important function and I have no intention of throwing out the baby with the bath water on this. I hope we can make sure the policy is clearer and reiterated to staff in the future.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BOE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BOE in any way.
What about Rosendahl’s behavior at the BOE meeting?
Chick,
Some of us gave our take on it here previously in another article. Were you there to see it and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Chicklet,
The description given on the Cafe matches my recollection of the events. I think that the actions speak clearly for themselves. It’s time for all board members to put this last unfortunate referendum behind them and remember what we have been entrusted to do.
Thanks
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BOE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BOE in any way.
Speaking to Rosendahl’s behavior and his assertion about a letter of no confidence - I think Dr. Baran ought to take a cue from certain parties in town and sue Mr. Rosendahl for libel.
Or, I suppose, Dr. Baran could just keep trying to do what is in the best interest of the Town, and act in a calm, civilized manner.
What too many people seem to be missing is that no government is perfect. I applaud those who watch what elected officials do, however, such an endeavor can be taken to an extreme.
There also seem to be too many people in Town who are willing to go to any lengths to force(not just promote) their point-of-view.