When Trustees Bueltel, Anness, Bull, and Gupta made their case for passing the Disclaiming Motion against me, they spent a lot of time stressing how trust had been broken. They voted against a motion to postpone a vote on the motion so that the facts could be presented publicly at a regularly scheduled meeting.
Here is what they should have mentioned in the Disclaiming Motion or while making their case for it:
On November 16, 2022, I met with Trustee Bull and Bueltel at Rochester High School for roughly an hour. There were a lot of topics covered. At times uncomfortable for each of us; it was a candid conversation. My blog Finding the Right Answer (FTRA), the Code of Cooperation, and the need to establish trust were three specific topics we discussed.
I was asked if I would be shutting down my blog. I clarified that I would not be shutting down FTRA. Both Bull and Bueltel acknowledged that no policy or law barred me from continuing my blog. Bueltel shared that she was concerned about information posted that did not reflect well on the district and that it could have a negative impact. I told her that we should be focused on addressing the actions that reflect poorly on the district and not trying to control the flow of information. I committed to both of them that nothing would be posted on FTRA that violated any District’s policies or laws. To date, I have upheld that commitment.
Code of Cooperation
As for the Code of Cooperation (COC), Bull mentioned wanting all Trustees to sign them at the first meeting as a sign of good faith. She also offered me the opportunity to review them and give feedback if I had concerns preventing me from signing. Bull said they were open to making changes to get all trustees to sign.
On December 6, 2022, I sent Bull and Bueltel feedback with a detailed explanation of concerns and stated that I would not sign the COC. I let them know I was open to their offer to work on making changes to the COC. They made no outreach to me on their offer to revise the COC to amend it into something I would feel comfortable signing.
Trustee Bueltel and I carpooled to Oakland County School Board Association Orientation Dinner the following day. On the car ride, the COC topic came back up. Bueltel expressed that she wanted to better understand the concerns I raised in my email. In the email, I said, “Some could fear that with this vagueness and subjectivity, they could be targeted for having a different opinion. The more significant issue is that these are non enforceable. This allows the board to be questioned and potentially sued if it tried to hold someone accountable based on these Codes.” Bueltel said signing them was symbolic and did not understand my concerns. I let her know if our COC is just symbolic, there is no value added by signing it, no reason to do so, and it is a significant concern that we have non-enforceable bylaws.
Now let’s talk about building trust and who broke it.
Bull and Bueltel both expressed concerns with what they say to me ending up on FTRA. I committed to them that private conversations would stay private. There have been multiple discussions, text messages, and emails, and they all remained private up until the passing of the Disclaiming Motion. I held up my commitment and have been operating in good faith.
On the other hand, the offer to work on the bylaws was not genuine. They sold the COC as a symbolic gesture and disregarded my concerns about them. They voted to approve a Disclaiming Motion built around violating the COC, which is precisely what I had warned them could happen. How can this be considered operating in good faith or trying to build trust with a newly elected Trustee?
2 Responses