The River Reporter Online - Letters to the Editor

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The River Reporter welcomes letters on all subjects from its readers. They must be signed and include the correspondent's phone number. The correspondent's name and town will appear at the bottom of each letter; titles and affiliations will not, unless the correspondent is writing on behalf of a group.

Letters are printed as they are received, or at the discretion of the editor, and without correction to grammar or spelling. It is requested they be limited to 500 words; correspondents may be asked to cut longer letters. Deadline is 1:00 p.m. on Monday.

[From the editor: The letter printed last week about casino gambling was written by Chas J. Sidlowski of Beach Lake, PA.]

Certain Sullivan West school board members claim that, because Ms. Sauer-Jones revealed to your paper that Margy Tenbus was arrested and convicted of a DWI charge, Ms. Sauer-Jones should be removed from the board of education. However, nothing has been revealed in any public news reports that wasn’t already available for public information. This was not confidential information. For the last 16 months, this information went unreported to the public by the usual powers that be. Ms. Sauer-Jones maintained the code of ethics during that entire period leading up to the controversial appointment of the new high school principal. Tolerance can be a good thing, but enough is enough!!

Sixteen months ago, the arrest was made within our district, only a few days before high school graduation. All board members were made aware of the arrest and we collectively held our breath hoping news wouldn’t break of this seemingly shameful occurrence before graduation. What a disgrace and embarrassment this would be for our fledgling district. Amazingly enough, it never reached a single news report until October 2001.

It was most fortunate for Ms. Tenbus when the arrest was not reported in the news. She kept her position and her reputation, as far as the public was concerned. I was outraged to learn that five of the present board members sought to promote Ms. Tenbus to Sullivan West High School principal. The SW High School principal is a role model position with a requirement in the job description to enforce positive role-modeling by personal example. In addition, Superintendent Johndrow did not make his recommendation to give this position to Ms. Tenbus.

Let me make it plain for the public to understand: Mr. Johndrow is the direct superior of Ms. Tenbus and, by not recommending her for the job, he is saying he does not feel she is capable of handling this job. Four board members and top people in our district know this also. Ms. Wagner’s and Mr. Rowley’s intent to resign are directly related to the school board’s inappropriate and undeserved appointment of Ms. Tenbus.

Mr. Johndrow is a highly qualified individual with many years of educational experience. It is his job to make all day-to-day decisions, both large and small, for the school district. For the school board to start doing so is inappropriate, unwanted and unhealthy “micro-managing.” There is not one educational expert among the Sullivan West school board. Their appointments should be made as a direct reflection of our superintendent’s recommendation, not in direct contrast to it.

So many people are fond of saying they act in the “best interests of the children.” Actions do speak much louder than words. The five board members’ actions do not reflect “the best interest of the children;” they are serving themselves and Ms. Tenbus’ interests only!

We are about to lose one of the most valuable administrators that we have in the Sullivan West School District. Regina Wagner has helped more parents and students, than probably any one person. The extent of her compassion and humanity make her a uniquely qualified individual. An environment exists in the district that makes it impossible for her to stay. Dave Rowley, a professional, hardworking and a dedicated administrator, has been forced to resign. As of this writing, I know of at least one gifted, caring teacher who has tendered her resignation, due partially to this situation. Who will be forced out next, Mr. Johndrow? How many will follow?

In the best of circumstances, it would be near impossible to replace these people. But who will come to work at Sullivan West? What competent administrator would come to work in a district that is micro-managed by its board? What administrator would work for a board of education who would disregard their professional opinion?

The word is out at educational institutions throughout New York State. New teachers have heard of the problems we are having at Sullivan West. Teachers are in great demand. Why would any competent teacher or administrator come to Sullivan West?

Our board of education has accomplished many important things. Recent events, however, indicate that motives other than our children’s best interests are now in play. It appears that power, control, pettiness and emotionalism have replaced our children as the primary motivators. This has led to a problem that will not go away. This district will be paying the price for our board’s actions, and we will feel the loss of these talented and committed teachers and administrators for many years to come.

I charge the board with the task of fixing the problems they have created, or maybe the district would be better off if some of them were the ones to resign?

In his 11/8/01 The River Reporter OpEd piece, Sullivan West superintendent Michael Johndrow claims that he is “a strong believer in communication between school and community.” He insinuates that he and the school board are being unfairly victimized by “certain citizens out there that thrive on creating dissension and perpetuating the spread of misinformation.” He identifies contentious issues, some fabricated and some very real, and then proceeds, in 1,100 words or more, to offer explanations for them which fall well short of the truth.

School district administrators have the use of various taxpayer-funded vehicles with which they are able to disseminate information to the public. There are few such opportunities for the public itself to respond. Mr. Johndrow has often used the school newsletter, flyers created by an expensive public relations firm, and board of education meetings as a forum for what he wants the public to believe. Your newspaper has now extended additional space in which he is able to create an image of administration accomplishments.

Recently I submitted a response to Mr. Johndrow’s OpEd piece. Your publisher, Laurie Stuart, has refused to print my letter citing the “500 word” clause of your letters to the editor policy. How unfortunate that your newspaper does not balance the presentation of ideas by offering equal space to citizens who wish to answer Mr. Johndrow’s charges.

Beginning with the merger vote, residents of the former Narrowsburg school district have demonstrated a strong vote bias towards Narrowsburg school board candidates, the school building project, and the merger itself. In fact, almost all of Mr. Johndrow’s policies seem to suit the needs of the residents of Narrowsburg to a much greater degree than they do the voters in the DV or J-Y former districts. The latest buzzword for such narrowness of interest is “parochialism.”

Could there be a direct correlation between the partial opinion of Narrowsburg voters and your newspaper’s biased presentation of school issues?

[Editor’s note: The River Reporter actively seeks to present many sides of issues confronting the community. It maintains an open letters to the editor policy and requests that all letters submitted for publication be no longer than 500 words. There is no limit to the number of letters that can be submitted by any individual.]

The Mamakating Democratic Club members support Joann MacKinnon’s bid for the District 4 legislative seat left vacant by her husband’s demise. Why, then, did the Mamakating Democratic Committee vote seven to four not to support her bid for the seat? More disconcerting is that five out of the seven of those committee members are not even eligible to vote in District 4. Shouldn’t constituents that actually live in District 4 make the choice? I, for one, am not pleased with a committee that makes an important decision such as this without taking into consideration the views of the people it will be affecting. The individual who steps into the vacant District 4 legislative seat should have some sense of the matters at hand and issues facing the legislator at this time. In addition, a working knowledge of the procedures and actions necessary to get things done would be greatly advantageous. Joann MacKinnon is familiar with this all. She would certainly bring honesty and integrity to the position while ensuring that the voice of the residents of District 4 would be heard and relayed to higher government. She is actively involved in the community and very well aware of the needs and desires of her neighbors. Joann is in tune with the constituents; too bad those seven committee members are not.