Linda: I will check. Is this a regular practice of the Professional Standards office to redact, or is this the first time a redaction has been done? Where in the manual does it define and circumscribe this practice?
Tom has made an enemy of that reporter, I bet. Not smart. I learned when I did PR for the Women's Movement that you don't question a reporter's accuracy. It is the one major vanity of the press that it does not make mistakes in facts. A person who has no better sense than to challenge an article's accuracy has made himself a press foe. And the press has a long memory and paid research staff. Smart people don't make enemies of the people who buy ink by the barrel. lee
Mr. Gradebook Solochek:
I went combing through your site for the column on the Professional Standards redaction of the Sheriff's Child Protection summary sent to the Board after the case was closed. I can't find it. Please send me the article.
I noted that you have a veritable festival of teacher-student sex articles. But you did not have the guts to report the Board Member
The administration fired Hart on a trumped-up charge of drunkenness; the board made Falliero its chair.
Even after Hart had showed me the divorce deposition that proved Falliera had an affair with him so I could expose the affair, the press tippytoed away from the story. You were too busy cataloging teacher sex. Teacher sex the press is not prissy about: just board sex. Administrator and Board Member sex is too hot for the traditional press to handle. Teacher misconduct is the template misconduct press piece. Reason: no guts.
lee drury de cesare
From: Linda Cobbe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Inquiry to Sheriff Gee
Lee, you got some facts wrong. I don't have the report-in-question with me, but no one made any changes to the CPI report. The original and "corrected" documents both say at the top that they are professional standards documents. I believe there is a link to both on the Times Gradebook blog.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Dear Sheriff Gee:
After the children's protection division of your department investigated a case of an administrator's cracking five pubescent boys' toes at
Tom Gonzalez, Board attorney, lied or misread the report for on the board dais in his official position he asserted that the report said there was no abuse. You can see his presentation on the education channel. He told a few of us citizens in the lobby after his statement on the board dais that the Times was wrong when it said the final report of the Sheriff's children's protection department said there were "some indications of abuse."
Mr. Marshall, Times reporter covering the issue, stood by his story and added more details in a subsequent column that showed Professional Standards went revised the report's original words to cover up the lawyer's lie or incompetence. This redaction Ms. Kipley called a "correction" did not say it came from the Professional Standards office, not reissued from the children's division of the Sheriff's office.
The Board never punishes administrators for professional breaches such as lying and redacting an official document from the Sheriff's child-abuse division; it saves punishment only for teachers' minor or made-up offenses to scare them about losing their jobs because Ms. Elia and the board cannot bear criticism.
The most severe punishment goes to teachers who speak out against administrative and board misdeeds or teachers who have a blog commenting on educational issues. If the Board Professional Standards criteria applied to administrators, both Mr. Gonzalez and Ms. Kipley would be charged with offenses that would merit dismissal in any agency which applies standards to all personnel.
The Times reporter re-investigated and found that the Professional Standards Office had redacted the Sheriff's report to cover Mr. Gonzalez's lie or mess-up concerning the wording of the Sheriff's Children's Protection services' report on the "some-indications-of-abuse" summary.
The Professional Standards revision neglected to say that the "corrected" report did not come from the child-protective department of the Sheriff's office. The Professional Standards office via Ms. Kipley made the corrections to fuzz-up the lawyer's lie and exonerate him.
Please tell me if you allow the employees of the places investigated by the Sheriff's Child-protection Services to correct the wording of the official report to cover up a lie or a stumble by one of the principals of the investigated agency, the Board lawyer in this case.
Lee Drury De Cesare