The following article, written by Klaus Gaebel, is reprinted from The Post Star, 01-24-08 The BOE and Superintendent Let a Bad Situation Get Worse From The Eagle's View, by: Klaus Gaebel Saugerties Post Star , January 24, 2008    Since December there have been three presentations concerning changes to the technology curriculum taught in the Junior and Senior High Schools. The most recent meeting on January 17th continued a process that will likely leave a great deal of animosity. It’s always struck me how those in government or public and education field employees can stand up in public and criticize their bosses or their proposals. Let that happen when you work in the corporate world and private sector, and you’ll be looking for a new job in the classified ads the next morning. Maybe protections afforded by civil service and tenure makes these workers brave. Likewise, it also needs to be said that superintendents and boards should never put teachers, staff, or department chairmen in the position of advocating for their programs in a public forum that doesn’t already have their support. At the December Board of Education meeting, technology teachers gave a presentation of their vision for their department. School Superintendent Richard Rhau said afterwards “this is the first of what we’ve seen of this. It took a little bit of an unusual way to get here.” A couple of weeks later, the superintendent gave his presentation to the board, which decreased the amount of floor space allocated to the department. What the technology department lost, the physical education department gained for their weight and cardiovascular program. Although Rhau claims more efficient use of the existing space will be more than adequate for improvements to the technology curriculum, the department teachers weren’t buying into that. Furthermore, although the board approved two new technology courses for the next school year, the course proposals for years two and three weren’t mentioned. So – that set the stage for a third board meeting on the subject. The board – divided on whether the superintendent’s plan was adequate for upgrading technology taught at the school, wanted to ask further questions of the superintendent and the technology department chairman. Some previous boards would have simply rubber-stamped this significant proposal by the superintendent. Some members of this board are at least willing to take a look at it and ask some questions. That’s a significant change from the past. Unfortunately, the way they’re going about questioning the superintendent’s proposal and trying to come up with possible alternatives is absolutely the wrong way to do it. Imagine how the technology teachers must have felt at the second and third meeting when they saw major components of their proposal shot down by the superintendent, their boss, in public. You do that in private, not in front of others. Not in front of administration. Not in front of their colleagues. Not in front of parents and staff. Not in front of their students. What should have happened is that the two departments should have each made their case to the superintendent and administration during workshops, not in front of the public, and the superintendent then should have decided on the best mix for the district. That may have eventually happened, but not early enough in the process to avoid the unfortunate debates in public. It’s up to the superintendent to propose to the Board of Education the best curriculum for students in the district. The superintendent is being paid to make the tough decisions on how to provide the best possible education to all the students in this district with the funds, staff, and infrastructure available. If either department isn’t satisfied with the superintendent’s decision, well, too bad. Their only option then is to privately convince board members to take another look, or to approach their building principal. If board members feel changes are needed, they should approach the superintendent and make their desires known. And it should be board members advancing the idea of changes - not attributing it to the superintendent’s employees. Jr. High building Principal Tom Averill, who has knowledge of technology curriculums and whose expertise has been called upon by the administration, was asked to stand before the board at the recent public meeting and give input. What he was really being asked to do was take sides. What an unenviable position he was put in - with Rhau, his boss, starring straight at him and colleagues in the audience that he has to work with listening to his every word. It was wrong for him to be asked to come up. That was a clear sign how desperate some players had become. He was being used as a pawn. Board members who wanted to know his opinion should have talked to him privately before or after the meeting. To his credit, Averill handled the situation like a real professional, and a bit of a politician. Good for him. It should be mentioned that the process that has unfolded is not simply based on what is best for this district and the children. It’s obvious personalities, history, and power has played a large part in the proceedings these past two months. “Senior” board members have been quick to pounce on mistakes made by newer board members at recent board meetings. Where was their experience and input on how this whole process should have been handled? Some seemed eager in letting the game be played out. Perhaps they were more interested in this drama embarrassing certain board members and the superintendent winning his way 100%, than a sincere effort to advance the educational needs of this district. What happens now? At the end of the meeting it was said a meeting would be held with the superintendent and the technology department chairman to come up with a compromise. At this point, the only ones discussing possible changes to the superintendent’s proposal should be the board and the superintendent. The technology department and physical education teachers have had their opportunity to make their case. There should be no such thing as a compromise between a department chairman and the superintendent at this point. If the board doesn’t like the superintendent’s plan, that should be between the board and superintendent. If the board likes his plan, then they should approve it. Denyse Ortlieb, Saugerties Teachers’ Association president, was pretty much on target in her letter to the board, which was read near the beginning of the meeting. She summarized recent proceedings fairly well when she wrote “The STA would like to express their disappointment in the events that have transpired this week, whereby two departments within our district are being pitted against one another. This administration has an obligation to create equity among programs and collaboratively work to resolve issues, not exacerbate an unfortunate, but avoidable situation.” During the next hour, the board and superintendent let a bad situation get worse.