Back to the email menu 

Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 7:57 PM

To: Margaret Weertz; Lois Valente; Dean, Jon; Cindy Pangborn; Fenton, Christian; Brian Summerfield; Ahmed Ismail; 'Daniel Roeske'

Cc: Fenton, Christian; Larry Lobert; David Peterson

Subject: Fwd: Response to Mr. Ismail

Fellow trustees,

As stated in our by-laws and per board discussion I am forwarding a request for information from Mr Ismail to School Exec Connect and the response to that inquiry.

I hope you all have a blessed Easter and relaxing spring break Judy Gafa

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Peterson <dpeterson3@charter.net<mailto:dpeterson3@charter.net>>

Date: April 5, 2015 at 12:22:57 PM EDT

To: Judy Gafa <2158mos@comcast.net<mailto:2158mos@comcast.net>>

Cc: Larry Lobert <larry@larrylobert.com<mailto:larry@larrylobert.com>>, Chris Fenton <Christian.Fenton@gpschools.org<mailto:Christian.Fenton@gpschools.org>>

Subject: Response to Mr. Ismail

Judy- 

Larry received an email from Mr. Ismail with various questions/issues about the presentation of candidates on April 13.  His email and our response follow.  Please forward to him and the rest of the Board of Education.

Thanks much,

Dave and Larry

Mr. Ismail:

This responds to your e-mail (below) sent to Larry Lobert on April 3.  As agreed at the beginning of the search this response is being sent to Mrs. Gafa for distribution.

Issue #1-Identity of Candidates We Do Not Bring Forward On the application for employment that candidates complete they sign a confirmation which, in part, says “I also request that my application and interest in the administrative position remain as confidential as possible under the applicable laws of the state. I understand that my candidacy may become a matter of public record (our emphasis) when I am presented to the Board.”

Under the Michigan OMA and our corporate practice we take that to mean that we will not release the names of candidates that we are not recommending for an interview without the candidates’ permission.  This practice was explained early in the search.

Understand that we have informed these candidates we are not taking them forward in the search. We will be glad to anonymously discuss the characteristics of candidates we did not bring forward.  If the Board wishes to interview one of those, we will contact them and seek permission to reveal their identity.  This is not only our corporate practice based on our interpretation of OMA but also a matter of common courtesy as they have likely not discussed their interest in Grosse Pointe with their current employer.

Issue #2-Resumes and Applications of the Candidates We Are Recommending You also ask when you will receive the applicants’ resumes and applications.  You will receive a complete copy of their application, resume and supporting materials at the Board meeting Closed Session.  This is in keeping with the practice outlined above.

Issue #3-Board Discussion of Slate

In regard to the Board discussing the slate, we had a conversation at the last Board meeting indicating that the Board is free to discuss and deliberate about the slate when they return to open session.  We only ask that you remember that you are discussing someone’s career in public and that it be done as positively as possible.  There is no intent to constrain Board discussion 

Issue #4-Sharing Resumes with the Public It is the Board’s decision when they wish to share the candidates' resumes.  If the Board chooses, they can be posted the next day.

We trust this responds to your questions.

Dave Peterson

Larry Lobert

School Exec Connect

On Apr 3, 2015, at 11:37 PM, Ahmed Ismail <ahmed@portraitplacegpw.com<mailto:ahmed@portraitplacegpw.com>> wrote:

Hi Larry, 

With regards to your email on the structuring of the questions, please feel free to tweak the questions I gave Judy as you feel needed.

My far bigger concern is that I will not have the opportunity to see the resumes of all of the applicants.  From what I am understanding, we will never know the names of or see the resumes of the candidates which you and Dave decide not to move forward.  Knowing how anal retentive I am, you know where I am on this issue. 

I understand your not wanting to physically give out resumes of the candidates you don't want to move forward.  Are we at least going to run down their names and why you felt they shouldn't move forward?  If we are not going to have this opportunity, then we really should be looking at this as though the only candidates for the position are the ones you and Dave have decided you would like to move forward and pretend the others didn't apply for the purposes of this process.

If the latter is the case, when will we receive the resumes/applications of the candidates that you do want moved forward?

I know that the vast majority of the public (for what it's worth) are not going to understand the concept of us not looking at the applications to protect the identity of those you don't want to move forward.  They are going to feel as though we are being herded down a path.  You or Dave need to spend some time whenever it is appropriate explaining why this is being done and that it is not because the board members are trying to skate through the process without doing their homework. 

If we aren't going to discuss the candidates you'd like to have go forward to determine if there is consensus that a candidate or candidates on your short list shouldn't be considered, why aren't we just going right into interviewing? 

The purpose of a closed session meeting seems (to me at least) to be a total waste of your time and ours if we are not going to have discussion on the slate you are proposing.  From a PR standpoint, we are going to look pretty obvious coming out of a closed meeting, someone making a motion that the slate you have presented and everyone voting for it 7-0 without discussion of the slate. 

In reality, any kind of vote without discussion or deliberation is basically a rubber stamping of the list being moved forward.  If that is the way the process needs to work, then the board vote is really a sham of sorts in my mind and it would be much more honest with the public to not vote on it at all, and instead just move into the interviews on the basis that there were "XX" qualified candidates in your minds that applied and we are interviewing all of them.

I don't want to beat this horse to death, Larry, or cause you an ulcer, as I know I will be in the minority with these thoughts; I just wanted to let you know how I feel you could streamline the process for your own sanity. 

Last item--when do you anticipate we will be able to share candidate resumes with the public?  I have been asked this question a number of times in the past few days, and would like to know an estimated date to tell those asking.  Telling them they won't get to see the resumes until the nights they are interviewed isn't going to make it with the public.

Feel free to call me re: the above at your convenience if you'd like to discuss further. 

Thank you in advance for your help (and travel safely) 

Ahmed

313-343-9060 (The Portrait Place--10am-5pm)

313-447-5600 (home--after 8pm)