• From: Judy Gafa <GafaJ@gpschools.org>
    Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:52 AM
    Subject: Re: School Board Candidates Recommended by President Weertz and Your Questionnaire
    To: Cindy Pangborn <PangboC@gpschools.org>
    Cc: Admin All <AdminAll@gpschools.org>, Ahmed Ismail <ahmed.ismail@comcast.net>, School Board <SchoolBoard@gpschools.org>


    Cindy
    Do you find it troubling that you added your name to a mailer claiming there was mismanaged money found on the 19-20 audit, when that audit hasn’t occurred yet? You are lying to the voting public. I find this incredibly unethical as well
    Judy

    On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:47 AM Cindy Pangborn <PangboC@gpschools.org> wrote:
    Thank you for bringing your opinion to the Board on this matter
    would. I imagine that there might be other Board members that might agree.
    I personally take offense to this as I take this invasion of my choice of candidates. The President has no power to speak for the Board on this matter.Cindy

    On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 7:47 PM Ahmed Ismail <ahmed.ismail@comcast.net> wrote:
    Hello, Dan,

     

    Thank you for your response to my email about your email of September 14 to your members. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your reasons for going forward with the school board candidate endorsement process.

     

    I have thought a lot about the dilemma President Weertz has put herself, the school board and your members in, and I think it is best that I not pursue the endorsement you have invited me to seek via questionnaire from the GPAA for these reasons:

    THE BOARD HAS REQUESTED YOU ENDORSE CERTAIN CANDIDATES. When President Weertz speaks, she is speaking on behalf of the entire school board. In essence, the school board has asked you to endorse their list of candidates. Inasmuch as your members have decided to go ahead with an endorsement, career-wise it would be suicidal for you and your members not to endorse the candidates they have requested;
    YOU HAVE ALREADY ADVISED YOUR MEMBERS OF THE CHOSEN ONES. Had you and Roy decided to keep the Mrs. Weertz’s selections for you to endorse between you, other candidates with arguably more value to the school system and staff would have a chance of getting an impartial analysis. I don’t believe any of your members can select the candidate(s) to endorse impartially now;
    PROS AND CONS LIST. One of the pros you list is your hard work being undone. We all know that I am very against the end result of the two year reconfiguration process you and your members undertook. While I know from members of your group who are also friends that many of you did not agree with the end result, I also know that you had no choice but to go along with the plan that came from above. Your members endorsing someone who doesn’t agree with the reconfiguration as completed is tantamount to your not following your marching orders; and
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Any candidate who comes to you for an endorsement stands the real possibility of also being your indirect employer. It would be improper (at least in my mind) to put any administrative staff member in the awkward position of feeling forced to endorse their potential employer. There are just too many times when this could create future problems in the event that I am re-elected to the board. It falls into the same category of admins putting up campaign signs on their lawns – it may be legal, but it sure isn’t professional. It’s the reason I never asked Chris Fenton to put up a campaign sign while he was working for the district despite our 50 plus years of friendship – it just wouldn’t be the right thing to do for either one of us.

    I wish you and your members the best of luck with this endeavor, Dan. I hope you can somehow unwind the tainting of the process for the other candidates who are moving forward with seeking your endorsement.

     

    Best wishes always,

     

    Ahmed