An alarm was accidentally set off at PVC on an early Sunday morning in February. The individuals involved are not willing to say what they were doing there. Why not?
Just an additional comment here, although it is really implied in the article. The school district has been doubly stupid here. First of all, when the police blotter item first appeared—which did not make a reference to a coaching event—the district should have been proactive and realized that everyone was going to wonder what was going on. They should have put out a statement. Then, once a reporter tries to figure out what did go on, they stonewall and refuse to comment at all—thus just increasing the suspicions and rumors. The district has a consulting communications person, and I have suggested to her more than once that the PR policy is not smart. But here we are, again.
I should really add to this that if the district had been willing to talk to me about this episode and had said, hypothetically, there is nothing here, the two men were coaching some kids in basketball or the like, I may well not have done a story at all. But their silence and refusal to respond actually made it necessary to do the story.
This seems like a case of the school district and the Board of Education just being plain stupid. Why not have our tax dollar funded PR consultant issue a statement about the incident for the sake of transparency??
I believe that at least part of the explanation is that the school board president, Ana Teague, has been trying for almost two years to discredit the Chronicle and claim that it publishes “misinformation.” That smear campaign has failed, but she keeps at it. One form it takes is not wanting to acknowledge that the Chronicle is a real media outlet, and she probably thinks that if she responded to requests for comment it would give the Chronicle credibility. But that ship has sailed, especially in matters involving the school district, where none of our coverage has been shown to be wrong.
Thank you for covering this incident. I blogged about it at the time.
The School Board Member was a Visitor who could not possibly have complied with the security procedures and protocols, and according to the same Board's own bylaws should have been removed from the school and prosecuted pursuant to State Law. This is laid out in the bylaw Policy 1240 "Visitors To The Schools": https://boardpolicyonline.com/?b=croton_harmon&s=26730
The obligations for visitors to enter through the designated point of entry, the requirement to sign the visitors' register, wear the visitor's identification bade, sign in and out, etc. are laid out in the bylaw Policy 5300 "Code of Conduct": https://boardpolicyonline.com/?b=croton_harmon&s=26929
And the School Board Member would also have broken bylaw Policy 2111.1 "Board Member School Visits". But the Croton-Harmon Board has never passed a policy on Board Member School Visits. This School District is near unique in NYS in not having any policy on Board Member School Visits. Usually the unannounced visits to Schools by Board Members is expressly prohibited. CHUFD belongs to the NYS School Boards Association who sent recommends this sample policy: https://www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib/NY01001156/Centricity/Domain/22/2111.1%20Board%20Member%20School%20Visits%20CLEAN%20COPY%2011-5-24.pdf
What this article is missing is that following this incident the Board of Education reacted by quickly changing the bylaws on Policy 1240 Visitors to the Schools and Policy 2110-R--School Board Powers and Duties. Their first reading of these policy changes was at the March 13th Business Meeting. https://go.boarddocs.com/ny/chufsd/Board.nsf/public.
The police blotter showed another employee set the alarm off a month later. This time instead of reporting the location as the school, the police now simply report it as "Gerstein Street". There is little on Gerstein street other than the schools. And since that report the police have not reported anything concerning the schools or Gerstein Street. This is in the same way the police blotter has not contained any incidents on Maple Street for a long time. It feels like political pressure may have been brought to the Croton police. The Mayor has made adverse public comments about local reporting of crime on Maple Street, and now it appears as if Gerstein Street may be subject to the same chilling as Maple Street.
There are hundreds of out of date and missing Board of Education policies where Croton-Harmon is uniquely bad amongst the seven hundred School Districts in NYS. Where this School District has missing and custom unique policies we open ourselves up to legal action. If this School District just used the NYSSBA policies we paid for, we'd have the protection from legal action that we'd be in a group with almost every other School District in NYS. The Board of Education makes us the taxpayers a target by failing to stay on top of its own bylaw policies.
I love the reporting (except that you had to get in a jab at President Trump).
Something illegal, embarrasing or possibly both was going on. If not, the district should clear the air and come out with the facts of the matter. I wonder what district policy allows people to be wandering around in a school building that early on a Sunday morning. They must have a policy regarding building access. Something to ask for Michael!
Thank you for questioning the School Board. In a town as educated as Croton, I've always wondered why parents sit back and let these people take charge of the schools. I don't think I would trust them with my cat much less decisions concerning my children's education. What are they hiding?
If Croton on Hudson is so exceptional and made up of so many educated people, why or why do we have such a screwed up school district and housing development plan?
I'd like to suggest that you change your writing to separate reporting facts from editorializing and promoting your publication. Croton could definitely use more good sources of news: Making it clearer when you are acting as a journalist vs. a businessman and advocate could help establish you in that role.
Posts that include opinion are clearly marked as Commentary (as in this case) or editorials or Guest Editorials. When they are not marked that way, they are straight reporting. I am not a businessman in the sense you are using the term; I lose money publishing the Chronicle.
No, this story combined commentary and reporting. That is often done in journalism. Actually, if you read the story, you yourself will be able to distinguish between the factual reporting and the commentary quite easily.
I wrote my note to suggest ways you can increase your appeal to people who might be skeptical of your work. I did read the article first, of course.
I saw the good reporting, but then it was overbalanced by editorializing, in my opinion. I entirely support your right as a publisher to express your views, but I think you would find more readers if you made the separation clearer. We definitely need more good factual reporting -- precisely because the line between factual reporting and opinionating has been smudged.
Just a friendly suggestion, really: Take it or leave it.
I appreciate the friendly suggestions, and take them in that spirit. But I would say two things. First, the Chronicle has a very significant readership in Croton. There are 1,200 direct email subscribers, many posts are read by more than that, and there are about 72,000 views per month. All of those are steadily increasing. Second, I think those who don’t like the Chronicle are usually people who just don’t think certain things should be reported, and don’t like the fact that it expresses the broad diversity of views in Croton—which we do. The mix of reporting and commentary is very deliberate and I think widely appreciated. To circle back, I don’t think the Chronicle is lacking in readers, although we would always like to have more. But we are not in a popularity contest and can’t change what we do just to cater to those who actually would prefer the Chronicle not exist at all. Just being frank here.
The very first sentence of the New York Open Meetings law contains: "... public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of
and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy". https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/100
When the Board of Education deliberates via email they are contravening the Open Meetings Law. We the public have the right to observe the Board of Education conduct government business.
The deliberation and decisions about the status, treatment, and communication with The Chronicle should have been conducted in an Open Meeting, not via closed email.
The Board of Education spends $28k of our money each year on advice from the New York State School Board Association (NYSSBA). The NYSSBA warns School Boards repeatedly not to deliberate or conduct business via email, because it is in contravention of the Open Meetings Law.
FOIL requests of the School District emails repeatedly show this Board of Education conducting business via email outside of Open Meetings. If they had proper records of their 'retreats', we might find business conducted there also.
The business conducted by the Board of Education about The Chronicle should have been conducted in an Open Meeting that the public could observe.
In principle you are definitely right. In this case, Neal Haber only copied enough people to avoid having a quorum—he stated that explicitly in an email—rather than the entire board. But I am sure in some way the entire board was informed. For now on I will send any requests for comment to the entire board instead of just to Teague and Walker.
Just an additional comment here, although it is really implied in the article. The school district has been doubly stupid here. First of all, when the police blotter item first appeared—which did not make a reference to a coaching event—the district should have been proactive and realized that everyone was going to wonder what was going on. They should have put out a statement. Then, once a reporter tries to figure out what did go on, they stonewall and refuse to comment at all—thus just increasing the suspicions and rumors. The district has a consulting communications person, and I have suggested to her more than once that the PR policy is not smart. But here we are, again.
I should really add to this that if the district had been willing to talk to me about this episode and had said, hypothetically, there is nothing here, the two men were coaching some kids in basketball or the like, I may well not have done a story at all. But their silence and refusal to respond actually made it necessary to do the story.
This seems like a case of the school district and the Board of Education just being plain stupid. Why not have our tax dollar funded PR consultant issue a statement about the incident for the sake of transparency??
I believe that at least part of the explanation is that the school board president, Ana Teague, has been trying for almost two years to discredit the Chronicle and claim that it publishes “misinformation.” That smear campaign has failed, but she keeps at it. One form it takes is not wanting to acknowledge that the Chronicle is a real media outlet, and she probably thinks that if she responded to requests for comment it would give the Chronicle credibility. But that ship has sailed, especially in matters involving the school district, where none of our coverage has been shown to be wrong.
Thank you for covering this incident. I blogged about it at the time.
The School Board Member was a Visitor who could not possibly have complied with the security procedures and protocols, and according to the same Board's own bylaws should have been removed from the school and prosecuted pursuant to State Law. This is laid out in the bylaw Policy 1240 "Visitors To The Schools": https://boardpolicyonline.com/?b=croton_harmon&s=26730
The obligations for visitors to enter through the designated point of entry, the requirement to sign the visitors' register, wear the visitor's identification bade, sign in and out, etc. are laid out in the bylaw Policy 5300 "Code of Conduct": https://boardpolicyonline.com/?b=croton_harmon&s=26929
And the School Board Member would also have broken bylaw Policy 2111.1 "Board Member School Visits". But the Croton-Harmon Board has never passed a policy on Board Member School Visits. This School District is near unique in NYS in not having any policy on Board Member School Visits. Usually the unannounced visits to Schools by Board Members is expressly prohibited. CHUFD belongs to the NYS School Boards Association who sent recommends this sample policy: https://www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib/NY01001156/Centricity/Domain/22/2111.1%20Board%20Member%20School%20Visits%20CLEAN%20COPY%2011-5-24.pdf
What this article is missing is that following this incident the Board of Education reacted by quickly changing the bylaws on Policy 1240 Visitors to the Schools and Policy 2110-R--School Board Powers and Duties. Their first reading of these policy changes was at the March 13th Business Meeting. https://go.boarddocs.com/ny/chufsd/Board.nsf/public.
The police blotter showed another employee set the alarm off a month later. This time instead of reporting the location as the school, the police now simply report it as "Gerstein Street". There is little on Gerstein street other than the schools. And since that report the police have not reported anything concerning the schools or Gerstein Street. This is in the same way the police blotter has not contained any incidents on Maple Street for a long time. It feels like political pressure may have been brought to the Croton police. The Mayor has made adverse public comments about local reporting of crime on Maple Street, and now it appears as if Gerstein Street may be subject to the same chilling as Maple Street.
There are hundreds of out of date and missing Board of Education policies where Croton-Harmon is uniquely bad amongst the seven hundred School Districts in NYS. Where this School District has missing and custom unique policies we open ourselves up to legal action. If this School District just used the NYSSBA policies we paid for, we'd have the protection from legal action that we'd be in a group with almost every other School District in NYS. The Board of Education makes us the taxpayers a target by failing to stay on top of its own bylaw policies.
Perhaps this explains in part why they haven’t wanted to talk about it
I love the reporting (except that you had to get in a jab at President Trump).
Something illegal, embarrasing or possibly both was going on. If not, the district should clear the air and come out with the facts of the matter. I wonder what district policy allows people to be wandering around in a school building that early on a Sunday morning. They must have a policy regarding building access. Something to ask for Michael!
Thank you for questioning the School Board. In a town as educated as Croton, I've always wondered why parents sit back and let these people take charge of the schools. I don't think I would trust them with my cat much less decisions concerning my children's education. What are they hiding?
If Croton on Hudson is so exceptional and made up of so many educated people, why or why do we have such a screwed up school district and housing development plan?
I'd like to suggest that you change your writing to separate reporting facts from editorializing and promoting your publication. Croton could definitely use more good sources of news: Making it clearer when you are acting as a journalist vs. a businessman and advocate could help establish you in that role.
Thanks.
I’d argue that most reporting is done with a mix of both. The separation of “fact” from “opinion” has dissolved, if it ever even existed, and this is relatively well discussed in media analysis circles. This Pew study is interesting too: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/
Yes. I taught journalism for many years at the graduate and undergraduate level and we spent a lot of time discussing these questions.
Posts that include opinion are clearly marked as Commentary (as in this case) or editorials or Guest Editorials. When they are not marked that way, they are straight reporting. I am not a businessman in the sense you are using the term; I lose money publishing the Chronicle.
Point taken, thanks.
Was there a straight report about the underlying incident that I missed?
No, this story combined commentary and reporting. That is often done in journalism. Actually, if you read the story, you yourself will be able to distinguish between the factual reporting and the commentary quite easily.
I wrote my note to suggest ways you can increase your appeal to people who might be skeptical of your work. I did read the article first, of course.
I saw the good reporting, but then it was overbalanced by editorializing, in my opinion. I entirely support your right as a publisher to express your views, but I think you would find more readers if you made the separation clearer. We definitely need more good factual reporting -- precisely because the line between factual reporting and opinionating has been smudged.
Just a friendly suggestion, really: Take it or leave it.
I appreciate the friendly suggestions, and take them in that spirit. But I would say two things. First, the Chronicle has a very significant readership in Croton. There are 1,200 direct email subscribers, many posts are read by more than that, and there are about 72,000 views per month. All of those are steadily increasing. Second, I think those who don’t like the Chronicle are usually people who just don’t think certain things should be reported, and don’t like the fact that it expresses the broad diversity of views in Croton—which we do. The mix of reporting and commentary is very deliberate and I think widely appreciated. To circle back, I don’t think the Chronicle is lacking in readers, although we would always like to have more. But we are not in a popularity contest and can’t change what we do just to cater to those who actually would prefer the Chronicle not exist at all. Just being frank here.
I really was inclined to support your work. But you're so eager to fight that you don't listen.
The very first sentence of the New York Open Meetings law contains: "... public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of
and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy". https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBO/100
When the Board of Education deliberates via email they are contravening the Open Meetings Law. We the public have the right to observe the Board of Education conduct government business.
The deliberation and decisions about the status, treatment, and communication with The Chronicle should have been conducted in an Open Meeting, not via closed email.
The Board of Education spends $28k of our money each year on advice from the New York State School Board Association (NYSSBA). The NYSSBA warns School Boards repeatedly not to deliberate or conduct business via email, because it is in contravention of the Open Meetings Law.
The initial training every new Board of Education member receives warns them not to conduct business outside of Open Meetings, especially not email. The Handbook is online: https://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/nyssba_pdf/new-board-member-handbook09252023.pdf
The NYSSBA Email Usage Handbook is online: https://www.nyssba.org/clientuploads/nyssba_pdf/email-usage-handbook-06022023.pdf
Elsewhere in New York State, other Boards of Education ceased this practice over 20 years ago, following this Advisory Opinion of the Committee on Open Government: https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o3787.htm.
FOIL requests of the School District emails repeatedly show this Board of Education conducting business via email outside of Open Meetings. If they had proper records of their 'retreats', we might find business conducted there also.
The business conducted by the Board of Education about The Chronicle should have been conducted in an Open Meeting that the public could observe.
In principle you are definitely right. In this case, Neal Haber only copied enough people to avoid having a quorum—he stated that explicitly in an email—rather than the entire board. But I am sure in some way the entire board was informed. For now on I will send any requests for comment to the entire board instead of just to Teague and Walker.