Good morning.
Wednesday in Whitewater will see showers and thunderstorms with a high of 65. Sunrise is 5:16 AM and sunset 8:31 PM for 15h 15m 39s of daytime. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 58.5% of its visible disk illuminated.
On this day in 1950, the iconic Volkswagen Type 2 “Bus” begins production.
The Whitewater Unified School District’s board met last night. One finds — month over month — that in the community there is increasing concern about the district’s course and the responsiveness of the board to that concern.
A few words about residents’ remarks, including their comments on retaliation, in practice and principle.
In practice. At a meeting of the Whitewater Unified School District’s board on 5.24.22, there was expressed both concern (and reassurance in reply) over the possibility of retaliation for speaking against district plans. On the night of that session and twice afterward, I’ve watched that meeting in full. The May session saw forceful, prepared remarks from the board before residents’ public comments.
(One resident mentioned during Tuesday’s 6.7.22 board meeting that the board’s May statement before public comment felt ‘invalidating.’ In the two weeks since that meeting, I’d guess that others in the community share that view. Credit where credit is due: one cannot say that the board did not make its sentiments known to the community through those prepared remarks. If the board’s statement was meant to quell public upset, however, then one can say that the May statement was unsuccessful.)
Any public institution should offer genuine reassurance against retaliation for speech against government; a well-ordered public institution should not need to offer many of these assurances.
Here, however, is the practical problem that confronts the district: there are too many people, too concerned, for this district’s board alone to settle these concerns. School boards and common councils have nowhere near the community clout they did twenty years ago. The decline in public boards’ strength within Whitewater, in particular, has not come because people have become more skeptical of government. It has come because the socio-economic changes since the Great Recession have made the community both more outspoken and more divided on dozens of issues. (I’d be happy to say that increased support for limited government has come as a matter of libertarian principle, but it of course hasn’t. It has come from cultural shifts beyond politics.)
Whitewater’s a beautiful place, well worthy of one’s love, but it’s not an easy place. (A candid confession: I don’t love this small city in spite of her sometimes irascible nature — I love her with that nature. Never have I loved a place more; the happiest moment of an enjoyable trip elsewhere is always when I return to this city again.)
Regardless of why Whitewater is as she is, as a matter of practical conditions, her school board cannot (for long) shield a superintendent from community debate (and in the same way, Whitewater’s common council cannot shield its city manager). It’s possible to do so for a meeting or two, but that’s not a long-term strategy.
This is especially true when significant numbers of residents, rather than city or district employees, are among those expressing concern. These concerns, especially for the district, now reflect residents‘ policy and cultural objections. The school board (or common council) can push these objections back for a while, but neither public body is influential enough to resolve them on behalf of appointed leaders.
If chronic concerns are to be resolved, then the resolution will require the appointed leaders of the district and the city to do so on their own, in extended public conversations with residents. There’s no other effective way; both public institutions will otherwise be engaged in repeated and debilitating community skirmishes.
Who can improve the position of the superintendent in this community? Only the superintendent in conversation in public meetings with residents. Who can improve the position of the city manager in this community? Only the city manager in conversation in public meetings with residents.
How can that condition be improved? In public discussions, on the record, with residents, through question and reply, month after month until conditions improve or until it becomes obvious no resolution is possible.
A private ‘call tomorrow’ (as offered during the 6.7.22 school board meeting) isn’t helpful. District success (if any) depends on comprehensive discussions in public meetings.
It doesn’t help the superintendent — in fact, it undermines her — when board members or subordinate administrators intervene on her behalf to represent district views. Honest to goodness, I’m not sure why this isn’t obvious, but it should be. Others’ intervention, even if well-meaning, is counter-productive to her situation.
A few words about communication: the first place to look for failures of communication is with the communicator. If the government is misunderstood, the first place to look for the source of that misunderstanding is with the government, not with residents. If a lawyer is misunderstood, the first place to look for the source of that misunderstanding is with the lawyer, rather than with paralegals, secretaries, or clients. If a blogger is misunderstood, the first place to look is toward the blogger, rather than toward readers.
As for speaking by the government, there is an obligation for leaders to speak plainly and at length about their plans for this community. There has been too little of that over the last year in the district and in city government, both. See Big Changes Require Big Explanations. Those formally educated owe it to the community to meet the standards of the schooling they have received, both in direct address and patient reply to questions.
(By the time the superintendent and some board members were turning around during the 6.7.22 meeting to answer a resident’s questions on early childhood programming, it was obvious there has been a failure of prior district communication about the early childhood program.)
It’s almost as though no one cares enough to offer effective guidance. While I would not expect government officials to take this libertarian blogger’s advice, it’s sound advice nonetheless.
I have no personal dislike for Whitewater’s superintendent or city manager. (Truly, to ascribe those feelings to me would be a mistake.) One can see, however, that existing controversies need to be resolved, as these controversies among residents are now widespread.
The problem is more significant than what some public employees think (although that matters). These concerns have become residents‘ concerns. Whitewater is an economically-challenged community that does not deserve, and cannot afford, chronic objections that have not been addressed directly by a superintendent (or city manager).
In theory. Speaking on controversial subjects invites the possibility (whether big or small) of retaliation. Almost as destructive is a waxing view in Whitewater that there has been or may be retaliation for speaking out. Perception can be destructive all on its own.
(As for retaliation in the case of speech, one prepares for difficult outcomes even if those outcomes are improbable. One does better — much better — if one begins every effort seeing oneself as a dark-horse underdog. A person may meet all sorts of reverses along the way, but should plan beforehand how to overcome them, pressing on with his or her case.)
It’s likely that the politics of those residents most concerned about this superintendent, for example, are different from mine. No matter — their concerns and complaints deserve to be heard and answered.
Again, it should be plain that this sort of ongoing controversy is not in Whitewater’s interest, educationally, economically, or politically. There is simply no margin for leaving these issues unaddressed.
How very odd, how very strange, to watch this unfold in Whitewater.
Salisbury cathedral peregrine falcon takes first flight:
Good advice I guess no one will take. It’s been years since Whitewater has been through this type of turmoil. Worse now than mask wars. People are so disgusted.You can see they don’t give a damn.why can’t this town catch a fucking break?
Well, it is telling that these controversies are not pandemic-related. One can distinguish them easily from that global phenomenon. They have generated among some residents displays of feeling as intense as any during the pandemic. That makes these concerns problematic in themselves and as cumulative stresses in light of the pandemic.
I’ve no answer for how individual board members *feel* about residents’ concerns. The public remarks they’ve made speak well enough.
Here is a view from the campus for you.
Many campus parents live outside the Whitewater district. The atmosphere in Whitewater definitely isn’t giving them any regrets.
Milton, Fort, Elkhorn, Stoughton, Madison, you name it. They are all destinations for families that want somewhat more tranquility.
Whitewater’s typical modus operandi is to say everything is great. A friend made a joke about that yesterday. She said Whitewater should own up and change its name to “Gaslighter”. What do you think? It would probably fit on the same signs.
It is a competitive environment between districts. Some number of Whitewater’s troubles will likely be other districts’ gains. As you note in your reply, some losses have already been felt, when parents have chosen other communities.
I am in favor of parents being able to choose between districts; it’s regrettable that they’re choosing against Whitewater.
The proposed change of name for this community is, however stinging, admittedly clever. I cannot recall hearing it before. The easiest and most effective way to avoid gaslighting is for officials and residents to speak candidly about the community’s problems. Truth is, after all, the natural enemy of gaslighting.
Whitewater is beset with too many marketing campaigns that are, in the end, too little believed. People will join in a repair effort more devotedly than they will a marketing effort. Whitewater still struggles with grasping as much.
The big takeaway suprise is that NOTHING will change. The board already said last time that they BACK this superintendent. Said it before anyone EVEN SPOKE. That means losers we will show you who is boss.It doesn’t matter what people say. these guys think they are better than everyone elseThank for your input blah blah blah losers. laugh with their pals after the meeting. I will tell you right now that after this year people are not going see these guys the same way. Thanks for caring anyway though for all the difference it makes.
I can’t say what will change, except to note that few things stay the same for long. It’s impossible that Whitewater’s schools will collapse, but between the status quo and collapse there is room to move either up or down.
Whether officials or residents think some others are losers — well, I’ve not bothered to inquire. It wouldn’t occur to me to ponder their views that closely.
However strongly I’ve held my own views, I’m not in the habit of thinking people are losers. Wrong, well, possibly; losers, not at all. Most people are sharp — society could not function otherwise.
Perhaps some officials will experience reputational damage, but if you should be right that they think critics are losers, it’s hard for me to believe that any possible reputational loss would matter to them.
Best to go on doing one’s best without worrying about those sort of designations.
Whitewater, thankfully, has no dignitaries. It’s a community of ordinary people, neither higher nor lower than any other.
I’d much rather live in Whitewater than England — a life in the shadow of Buckingham Palace would be a dark and cold.
Thank you John Adams for bringing this up,. Both the city and school district are in a shitstorm with rumors of the high pay managers hiding behind closed doors, answering to no one. a couple years ago my neighbor said to me, everybody knows the city manager does not return phone calls,. Board and council, stop taking the easy way out and show the voters they made the right decision your promises when you asked for our vote aren’t being kept. who is running the show anyway. Unless something changes I plan to start looking to move to Milton. Paid top dollar to live here but don’t like the atmosphere and family deserves better
Thank you for your comments.
An election should be more than an opportunity to retain office after which one rests. An election should be the beginning, not the end, of hard effort. No one is conscripted into office. Those who don’t wish to serve productively should find other pursuits.
I hope everyone here stays here, but I well understand that this community must create conditions worthy of its residents.
People have a moral right and obligation to choose what is fitting for their families.
My very best to you — Adams
Thank you for sharing this thought provoking commentary.
So why was tere a pre written statement before anyone spoke at the first meeting?
Here, you’re referring to the 5.24.22 meeting. It’s not clear why, but it was a choice, a decision (and a significant one). It’s unsurprising that it was upsetting to those with concerns they wanted to present that night, and since. It was a notable decision, though, and that’s how it has been received in much of this community.
There’s no circumstance whatever by which it was a good idea.
Shame on the public boards for letting their managers put gag orders on employees and teachers. I thought we were in America. And we wonder why we have The Great Resignation and where the young people are learning to be bullies.