Here’s some insight we’ve all been waiting for!

Written by former Board of Education member and president Mark Slivka, this letter claims that the “precipitating event” behind Superintendent Debra Jackson’s resignation was the incident at Bedford Hills Elementary School, where staff members failed to report the suspected sexual abuse of a student and were arrested, reassigned and/or resigned.

If you recall, the school board and Jackson refused to comment on the resignation when it became public in June, citing a confidentiality clause in the agreement.

But a copy of the agreement obtained by my colleague Sean Gorman found that Jackson will get a lump-sum payment of $650,000 and free lifetime health-care coverage for her and her family when she steps down.

Jackson’s resignation does not become effective until June 30, 2008, but that’s still three years before her contract was set to end in 2011. The $650,000 payment will be in addition to the $243,461 Jackson will be paid this school year.

I’ll let Slivka’s letter do the rest of the talking…

Internal politics led to settlement agreement with superintendent

By MARK SLIVKA

Based upon conversations and my seven-year experience ending in 2006 as a board member, I believe that the following events led to the Bedford Central School Board agreement with superintendent Dr. Debra Jackson that has been widely discussed in area newspapers.
Five months after lauding Debra Jackson for two years of exemplary service, and awarding her a five-year contract in July of 2006, the Bedford Central Board of Education decided that she had to go. The precipitating event was the Bedford Hills Elementary School incident, involving staff members’ failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a student and the subsequent arrest, resignation and/or reassignment of school staff members. Board members were taken aback by the subsequent Bedford Teachers’ Association’s resulting vote of “no confidence” against them and went looking for answers. Either in meetings that were never publicly scheduled and/or posted and/or e-mail communications, the board came to believe and decided that Dr. Jackson was the disruptive influence. This belief arose after the board questioned various administrators, staff, and employees without Dr. Jackson’s knowledge. Rather than ever confronting Dr. Jackson or hearing her side of the story, the board decided to act and surprised her at a January meeting where she was essentially told that the board’s July action to award her a new contract had been a mistake, that Dr. Jackson micromanaged, and that the board wanted her to leave. The board even asked one of the district’s administrators, prior to its meeting with Dr. Jackson, if he/she would become the interim superintendent when Dr. Jackson was forced out.
At some point Dr. Jackson reacted by hiring an attorney, and by refusing to leave her position (something which would have been employment suicide for a superintendent just given a five-year contract). The board may have offered Dr. Jackson a year’s salary but became angered when she refused the offer. Dr. Jackson’s refusal to negotiate a deal of lesser value than the four plus remaining years of salary she was entitled to under her contract led the board to threaten her with charges. Eventually, a special counsel was hired to establish those charges.
The special counsel interviewed many administrators, who were given the message that they should cooperate, especially those who did not yet have tenure. The administrators were only asked for information that could lead to possible charges. The special counsel was not interested in any information in support of Dr. Jackson’s tenure.
As the interviews continued, the board kept up the pressure on Dr. Jackson to leave. As the May board and budget elections neared, the board decided not to make their conflict with the superintendent public until after the elections. Even prior to the May elections, however, information somehow surfaced in public that Dr. Jackson was being fired and/or leaving. With the year coming to an end, with board president Brad Sacks not having run for reelection, with the special counsel unable to establish credible charges, and with Dr. Jackson not budging from her bargaining stance, the board decided that they would have to pay Dr. Jackson what she wanted.
Rather than ridding the district of her immediately (by paying her the full amount remaining on her contract of nearly $1 million), the board decided to “save” $250,000 or so by keeping Dr. Jackson for an additional year and paying her $650,000 by June 30, 2007, along with lifetime medical benefits for her family.
Articles and editorials about the Dr. Jackson/BCSD agreement have focused on the potential $1 million cost to the district. There are many other ramifications to the episode.
Processes as well as decisions and outcomes are important both to employees and to the public. Employees expect that processes are reasonable and sufficient. The public expects that processes utilized by the board are both principled and tough. But the processes used by the board that resulted in the Dr. Jackson agreement were unreasonable and abusive. The board failed to ever advise Dr. Jackson that there were complaints about her work until their request for her to leave.
The board engendered all manners of gripes by furtively going to administrators and staff members and asking for complaints. The board also asked that on an ongoing basis the administrators report to the board on Dr. Jackson’s activities and/or decisions. The board held illegal meetings on these issues by not publicizing them or posting them and/or by holding them by e-mail. The board hired a special counsel for the purpose of embarrassing Dr. Jackson and forcing her out.
In addition, the processes the board used to come to the agreement were divisive. Administrators who did not have tenure were asked to comply with the special counsel’s questioning with the possible threat of loss of employment over their heads. The employees realized that if a sitting superintendent with a new five-year contract could be threatened, any of them could be as well. Administrators were left with board guidance that Dr. Jackson would soon be out of the district and therefore her decisions need not be followed. All administrators realized that someone could be informing on them to the board as well. Administrators were forced to put up with ongoing questioning by board members of issues that were within the superintendent’s purview.
Another ramification of the episode was the institutionalization of board micromanagement. For this coming year, especially, the superintendent will be purposely excluded from activities normal to her duties, contrary to public statements of the board. For instance, an invitation to the recent annual board retreat was not extended to the superintendent. By excluding the superintendent from activities and decisions other than those she is legally required to take part in and/or decide, it is the board that ends up making those decisions. As the other administrators are not required to listen to the superintendent, they are no longer supervised except by board members. While legally the board is complying with state law that requires that each district hire a superintendent, they are not complying with the intent of the law, which is to require that a competent person supervise, amongst other things, the other administrators. Do board members have the expertise to supervise and decide? Is supervision even part of their intended function?
The trust that the various boards of education have built up with the public since the 1997 bond vote has been severely compromised. This board has not been forthcoming to the public about the processes utilized, the timing of the decision, and the bases for the decision.
Under terms of Dr. Jackson’s contract, if the board had brought her up on charges, she would have had little real power to reverse their decision so as to retain her position.  Firstly, Dr. Jackson would have had the right to a public or a private hearing by an impartial arbiter. After hearing the evidence, the arbiter would have issued an opinion either validating or disputing the board’s decision. The board, however, would not have been bound by this opinion in any way and would have retained the right to either accept or reject it. Dr. Jackson would then have had the further right to appeal the board’s final decision either in court or to the Commissioner of Education. Here Dr. Jackson would have had to overcome the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, basically having to prove that there was no rational basis whatsoever for the board’s actions. Furthermore, success at this level would not have put Dr. Jackson back in her position. Essentially she could prevail as to property rights issues only and would have been limited to recovery of the value of her contract.
Despite their clear strategic advantage, the board of education did not bring Dr. Jackson up on charges. And what’s more, those charges which were formulated by the special counsel failed to intimidate Dr. Jackson into resignation and, evidently, further failed to diminish her financial leverage.
In short, the board had significant power to get rid of Dr. Jackson. Yet they had little faith in their ability to prevail. They didn’t bring charges because: 1) they lacked sufficient evidence and charges to have her fired; 2) they did not want to have the evidence of board duplicity revealed; 3) they did not want Dr. Jackson to discuss various administrators’ work and work product in a public process that certainly would have turned ugly; and 4) they did not want to pay $1 million in legal fees on top of the $1 million they would ended up owing Dr. Jackson.
As to the timing of the announcement of the decision, the board first told Dr. Jackson of their decision in January. The board deliberately hid their attempts to remove Dr. Jackson until just after the May board and budget elections.
Lastly, in my opinion, the board’s legal advice was poor. Much of the maneuvering seemed to be directed towards pressuring Dr. Jackson without regard to its effect on district personnel, principles of open governance and fair dealing, or the public trust. Agreeing to a confidentiality clause left the district open to a lawsuit and to public indignation; hiring a special counsel whose process was divisive and whose work product failed to produce adequate charges damaged personnel relationships and gave Dr. Jackson greater leverage in the final negotiations.
Board members provide valuable service to our communities, ensuring that the uniquely American institution, public education, not only survives but adapts to our needs. They provide this service without monetary compensation. For the most part the public trusts their judgment. But in this case board leadership exhibited extraordinarily poor decision making, lacked principle by utilizing abusive and divisive processes, and has been evasive in answering questions and providing information concerning the case.

Mark Slivka is a former Bedford school board member and president.