Hi Tony,
I promise you I'm not trying to start trouble but you invited me to
contact you directly with concerns. It appears one has popped up
already regarding Ed Eadon. I will acknowledge up front that Ed and I
have had our differences but that doesn't change the circumstances. I
spoke with Maura Swanson yesterday and she related to me a conversation
she had with Ed Eadon, and apparently Lisa Profumo was in on the call.
Ed related to Maura, a parent no longer involved in the 6th grade class,
the circumstances by which my daughter, was re-admitted to
Highland Hall. As if that weren't bad enough, he fabricated a lot of
what he told Maura. It is absolutely inappropriate for Ed or anyone
representing the school to publicise this information and I am extremely
concerned that such nonsense will find its way to my children's ears as
information contained in court orders are not to be shared with my
children. The last thing Highland Hall needs
now is another issue festering and gossiping to parents, especially by
the head administrator is going to be an issue. Ed can't seem to leave
my private life and my children's private lives out of school politics.
The parent handbook states that the communications protocol is to
be followed by administrators as well as parents. Why is Ed
communicating (miscommunicating) my situation to other parents? Please
Tony, let's put some caulk in this crack before the dam bursts again. I
assure you that I won't take this any further than this letter but I
need your assurance that this activity will stop immediately.
Thank you Tony.
Tony Blake wrote:
Pete
I've been out of town and unable to deal with a lot of the e-mail I
get. I understand your response and your specific issue. Unfortuately
I can't take the time to discuss this with you via e-mai. It's far too
time consuming for me to spend an hour (as it took for my last
response) composing an e-mail. I'm going to have to ask that if you
have any problems with Ed or the communications issue in the future to
call me and we can discuss it on the phone. I can accomplish a lot more
in a ten or twenty minute call than in an hour writing e-mail.
That said, I want to address just two points here. One, yes, the letter you got gave the school leeway in allowing it to change its protocol in the future. This is not directed only at you Pete. The school needs the flexibility to make adjustments to this protocol on an ongoing basis. (And FYI it's only been in print for the first time this year and despite your impression that it's been in place for years, has never been this comprehensive). So I'm sure you can realize the foolishness of an organization to say that a document stipulating guidelines is in concrete. So don't take it personally. It applies to everyone. I see it as a courtesy to let you know the school may from time to time change it's protocol. Otherwise if they did, it without your knowing they had that right, you'd really be outraged.
Also, I can see how you take issue with the comment (I haven't seen
the letter yet, and yes you can fax it to 818-xxxxxxx) "regarding any
communications having to do with Highland Hall." I asked about this and
found out that they ran this by the attorney who said this was a legal
position the school could take. In fact I found out from the attorney,
that a private school can ask a family to leave for any reason and even
no reason. So while I understand it's an additional stipulation to what
you agreed to, the school apparently felt they didn't want a current
parent going on the web and putting out negativity about it. Frankly, I
can understand that. Would you want someone who worked for your
company publicly dispensing negative information about it?
Look, here's the bottom line as I see it. If you are going to make
yourself the self appointed "web consultant" for prospective parents
for Highland Hall (as you imply when you say you receive inquiries from
prospective parents) I can assure you that you will continue to maintain
an adversarial relationship with the vast majority of people at the
school. Now that may be fine with you, but know that as Board President
I cannot support your taking it upon yourself to be the sole web
advisor to prospective parents. Just between you and me, I suspect the
opinion you give is hardly impartial or objective. And unless you
suggest to these folks that they speak to someone in addition to you,
say like me or an Elinor Reid or a Vicky Waldorf, then what I'm going to
assume is that you're giving prospective parents a one-sided very
negative impression of the school. If I'm wrong, let me know. If I'm
right, don't expect a
lot of support from me. I'm here to try to improve the way things work
and create a stronger organization. And if someone is publicly
dispensing one sided negative information about the organization, that's
in direct conflict with what I'm trying to accomplish.
If you want to continue this discussion, please call me. Evenings
are best after 7:30 although I'm out at meetings from time to time so we
may play phone tag from time to time.
Tony
Hi Tony,
I will call you if you insist, but it is difficult for me to accept
telephonic communications as a reasonable substitute for emails because
there is no record of what was said and, of course with email there
is. We could save a lot of time, perhaps, arguing over who said what
and when if we continue by email and of course there isn't the
telephone-tag problem. Again, I will call you from now on but I want to
answer a few points below and I will fax you the letter I received.
With regard to the communications protocol, FYI, it is not new this
year nor is it revised or more comprehensive this year than last year
but, as far as I can determine, it is exactly identical to last year's
communications protocol (check both parent handbooks - pages 16 and
17). I am not concerned with the school's right to change the
communications protocol as it applies to the school, but rather with the
statement that they have the sole discression to interpret it as they
see fit and, consequently, expel my kids. And, of course, the
implication that any mention anywhere of Highland Hall might be covered
by the protocol.
With regard to the expulsion of my kids, I agree the school can at any time expel them. What I object to is the school's stated premise that I am causing this to happen by my critical public review of Waldorf education and that this public review is somehow covered in the communications protocol. Your business example indicates to me that you have never been involved in the business world - you cannot find a company where employees aren't critical of management. If I had an employee that dispensed negative information about my company, the first thing I would want to know is if that information is true. If it was true, I would look for and address the problems within my company, not within the employee.
I'm not the self-appointed web representative for Highland Hall.
People seek me out. If they want to hear only the PR, they will look
elsewhere. They seek me out because they know I have had my share of
problems with Highland Hall. The way Highland Hall deals with me in
resolving these problems reflects on my opinion of Highland Hall, to be
sure. I can't help it if Highland Hall doesn't like that I speak with
other parents, or makes assumptions about what I might say. Are you
suggesting that I should just tell prospective parents that because I'm a
parent, I'm not allowed to speak freely about Highland Hall? I wonder
how that statement might be received by prospective parents.
Again, FYI, I represent Highland Hall much better than I should
considering what they have put me through over the years. Deep down
I know that Highland Hall's basic problems are administrative and
that people like Ed, who has no respect for parents, tend to
self-destruct. I've read enough Steiner to know where this attitude
comes from. In that regard, I can see some light at the end of a very
long tunnel and please trust me when I say that I believe there is hope
for Highland Hall. I didn't create the problems here.
Between you and me, I don't think Highland Hall gives an objective
view of itself to parents either. Nonetheless, you are absolutely wrong
about your assessment that I am providing a service of negative
one-sided reports. I have recommended Highland Hall to parents who have
high school age children. I believe the high school is managable and
despite some problematic treatment of certain subjects, and
some dogmatic teachers, it is generally good as long as parents are
willing to consider supplementing their children's education. Parents
who contact me often indicate which class their children might attend. I
sometimes recommend the lower grades if the class teacher is a good one
- yes, sorry, I'm the one who gets to decide this. If I can't
wholeheartedly recommend the class, I always suggest they contact
parents from the class they would be attending - and I provide them with
contact information. I also suggest they stand
outside the school and ask random parents what they think of the school
or suggest they attend a faire and mingle a bit - this is random and
they are as likely to talk to me as they are to Elinore Reid. As you
have recommended, I have provided contact information of board members
they might talk to - not necessarily Vicky Waldorf. I also recommend
they visit the SJU list, Anthroposophy Tomorrow, and OpenWaldorf web
sites - if you have other web sources you would like me to provide to
them I'd be happy to do so. I don't send them to PLANS.
Tony, there really are two sides to the Waldorf education story.
Many parents research it and find out it isn't for them. Some parents
try it for a few years and have a bad experience that changes their
mind. Everyone has a right to know both sides before choosing this for
their children. Parents who have already discovered the other side
contact me. I am absolutely honest about what has transpired and what I
represent (unlike Highland Hall - and you might want to ask Lisa
Profumo about the 1st grade parent meeting in which she represented to
new parents that Highland Hall has never had safety problems).
Highland Hall has the opportunity to deal with me respectfully or
to continue to treat me and many other parents in the way they have for
the past several years. I have repeatedly asked to be heard on the
issues of reform and I'd much rather deal with Highland Hall to
accomplish this than the general public. I admit that to some extent,
this determines how and if I recommend Highland Hall to parents.
But if you think I'm unfairly representing Highland Hall, let me
suggest this to you. I am mindful that a prospective parent could
decide to relate what I have said to Highland Hall. Indeed, anyone from
Highland Hall could email me and pretend to be a prospective parent
(and believe me, I've also kept this in mind all along). If you think I
am spreading untruthful information about Highland Hall, or a one-sided
story, why don't you pretend to be someone else and contact me - before
making a lot of assumptions about what I might be saying or doing.
If you *really* want to improve the way things work, then know that
I could never harm Highland Hall more than Highland Hall harms itself
through it's own posture of suppressing the truth and suggesting (as
contained in the letter that I will fax to you) that they can rebuild
trust by limiting communications by me or anyone else. To go back to
your business analogy, it is like GM firing the whistleblowers
and settling with victims out of court instead of correcting the real
problem of leaky gas tanks. Once their behavior is exposed to the
public, it's difficult to develop trust. Highland Hall's behavior needs
to change before you will improve the way things work Tony. I'd love
to have nothing to complain about but the people who find it necessary
to threaten me with letters like the one in question will ensure that I
always do.
Pete
Subject:
Calking the Crack |
From:
Pete Karaiskos |
Date:
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:27:02 -0700 (PDT) |
To:
Tony Blake |
Hi Tony,
I think we're going to need more caulk. I spoke with Ed Eadon
yesterday (Saturday). He indicated that the school decided to let Maura
Swanson know the detailed circumstances of my daughter's reenrollment
because Maura's own child had been denied reenrollment and they wanted
to head off any problems that might present. I pointed out to Mr. Eadon
that he has frequently proven himself to be quite capable of
withholding information and that he should have encouraged Ms. Swanson
to contact either Angela or me if she wanted to find out the details.
He agreed that this should have been done and apologized. Then
he further offered that Angela has been making rather public the
conditions of {daughter}'s reenrollment - conditions that I was not aware of
and haven't agreed to - and that this is why he felt he could share
this information publicly.
As if this isn't distressing enough, it turns out, based on my
conversation with Mr. Eadon, that there is apparently a letter on its
way to me from the college that details a new set of conditions NOT
contained in the court order, and conditions I have not agreed to, that I
have to meet in order to keep my children at Highland Hall. I
explained to Mr. Eadon that we had an agreement that {daughter} would be
reenrolled and that I would adhere to the school's communications
protocol per the court order. Mr. Eadon then got somewhat heated (as is
his nature I'm sure you know) and claimed that he had spoken with the
school lawyer and that the lawyer had assured him that the school could,
in fact, expel all three of my children "for any reason or for NO
reason" (Mr. Eadon's words) and that I would have to conform to the NEW
conditions or all three children would be expelled. Mr. Eadon, again,
had no reason to offer this information or make these
threats other than to personally attack me. If a letter was
forthcoming, he should have let it arrive and we could have dealt with
it then. He could have (rather uncharacteristically) kept his mouth
shut but he chose to exhibit his everpresent control issues.
You can, I'm sure, imagine how difficult and disruptive this action
by the school would be for the children and how it would impact their
lives. {Daughter} especially would be devastated by this and I feel certain
this would be viewed as the school's fault for admitting her under
a false set of conditions. After all these kids have been through at
this school, and after all I have been through with this school as a
parent, year after year and crisis after crisis, it is unimaginable for
me to comply with a gag order in order to ensure that my kids will
remain at Highland Hall and I am sure I made that clear in our phone
conversation. This was, indeed, why you suggested I speak directly to
you if a problem arose. I will adhere to the communication protocol as I
agreed to but I also insist on having the same rights as any other
parent. I thought we agreed to start fresh and work positively.
I'm not inclined to continue this pissing contest with Ed or
Christine or anyone else at the school. All I want, and I made this
clear to you, is for my kids to have a good, peaceful year. Ed has now
twice gone out of his way to rub salt in old wounds and to take what
would have been a positive situation this year and turn it sour. He is
not going to beat me into submission and he needs to know this - by
trying he is only making things worse and exposing the school to more
criticism or other action. The best course of action would be to bury
the hatchet, not to continue chopping. Please, Tony, PLEASE - talk with
him and ask him to stop this childish nonsense so we can just move on.
One last note... I am aware that Maura is also having problems with
Mr. Eadon. I want to assure you that this is not some conspiritorial
effort to overthrow Ed or to do him damage. Ed is his own worst enemy.
He could have simply acknowledged what I was saying in our telephone
conversation and left it at that. It is his need to be combative,
controlling and punishing (perhaps these stem from his military
background) that has now caused two cracks that require attention. We
need to stop making disgruntled parents out of people who just want a
good education for their kids.
Thanks for listening,
Pete Karaiskos
Subject: Re: Calking the Crack
|
From: rudykazootie
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
|
To: Pete Karaiskos
|
Pete
I just received your e-mail. Let me address this one paragraph at a time.
I asked you to call Ed specifically so that he could apologize for
revealing information inappropriately to another parent about your
situation. You indicate he in fact did apologize for revealing it and
that was all that I intended to accomplish.
His informing you about Angela talking openly about the court order
is apparently true from what I've heard from others on campus. I
understand how this is distressing for you, but I think it's important
that you know this, so you don't think it's Ed's talking to Maura that
has caused this information to be known by others. I also hope you
recognize that this is an issue that no one at the school can control.
That is between you and Angela.
To your statement: "Then he (Ed) further offered that Angela has
been making rather public the conditions of {daughter's} reenrollment -
conditions that I was not aware of and haven't agreed to -" I'm not
sure what your complaint is here. Is it about Angela making public the
conditions, or the conditions themselves? If the former, like I said,
that's a personal issue between you and her. If it's the latter, I
address it futher on.
Now to the letter that you learned was "forthcoming." Again, I
want to keep the points clear. You claim there is a "new set of
conditions not contained in the court order." So to my understanding
the court order indicated that in order for {daughter} to remain at Highland
Hall you would be required to follow the communication protocol.
That's not a new condition that I can see. Is there some other
condition you're speaking of?
If your statement "a new set of conditons not contained in the
court order that I have not agreed to" means the issue that your other
two children could be asked to leave if you do not follow communications
protocol, I see that as a broadened "consequence." It's not a new
condition of behavior being asked of you.
So to be clear, the conditions that you must meet are the same.
It's the consequence that I see as having been broadened. And
honestly, this decision is not within my area of responsibility.
Although, having checked with the lawyer, apparently it is legal.
However, that doesn't excuse Ed's heated behavior.
As I see it, Ed apologized for inappropriately revealing
information to Maura which is what I had asked. Then he informed you of
a letter that was on its way. When you say "Mr. Eadon, again, had no
reason to offer this information..." frankly, I don't see anything wrong
with informing a parent of a forthcoming letter. In fact, some
parents would complain if they weren't informed during a
phone conversation. However, if Ed's behavior, as you state, came
across as a threat or an attack rather than simply as matter of fact
information, then I agree, his behavior was inappropriate. And I'll
speak with him about that.
But one thing is coming very clear to me as I'm watching this
interplay unfold between you and him. I can see where people's
emotions (on both sides) start to cloud the accuracy of the issue
and eventually lead to huge communication breakdowns.
For example, your statement: " {daughter} especially would be devastated
by this and I feel certain this would be viewed as the school's fault
for admitting her under a false set of conditions" is in my opinion,
spinning things far and away from the truth. There is no false set of
conditions. We spoke in our original call about what the conditions
were. That you agree to follow a communication protocol. You agreed
and that hasn't changed. This is a critical point to me in staying
accurate. I see nothing more being asked of you than what was
originally agreed to. So if you agreed these conditions, (which have
not changed), and intend to comply, I don't foresee any more problems
for your family.
Which is why your statement "it is unimaginable for me to comply
with a gag order in order to ensure that my kids will remain at Highland
Hall" is so confusing to me. How can you expect me to believe you when
you tell me you intend to comply with the court order, (by following
communication protocol,) which you told me in our phone call, and then
make that statement? What is the truth, Pete? Are you intending to
comply, or are you intending to violate it? Perhaps herein lies the
root of your outrage.
To summarize: As I understand it, you're upset about hearing the
broadened consequences to the condition that you follow communication
protocol. (That's understandable). And when Ed informed you of the
new information, you got upset at the style in which he did it. Also
understandable. (I know you're also upset that he even told you about
it as opposed to finding it out in a letter, but as I've said, I see
nothing inappropriate about that.) And, it would appear from the
statement I quoted, that you are upset about what you call a "gag order"
and that you believe it's unimaginable that you could comply. Which I
can only interpret to mean that you expect to be unable to comply and
therefore expect to trigger the aforesaid consequences. (Please know
that I will find it difficult to assist you in the future if indeed you
decide to violate the court order.)
Considering that I asked you to call Ed to clear up a problem once
before and that led to another communication breakdown between the two
of you, I hesitate to have you two speak again. It seems you ignite
each other's fuses.
I will speak with him about his style regarding how you felt he was
making threats and how you felt attacked. It's not how a parent should
be treated, under any circumstances.
Tony
Subject:
Re: Calking the Crack |
From:
Pete Karaiskos |
Date:
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:02:05 -0700 (PDT) |
To: Tony Blake
|
Thanks for responding Tony.
>Now to the letter that you learned was "forthcoming." Again, I
want to keep the points clear. You claim there is a "new set of
conditions not contained in the court order." So to my understanding
the court order indicated that in order for {daughter} to remain at Highland
Hall you would be required to follow the communication protocol.
That's not a new condition that I can see. Is there some other
condition you're speaking of?<
Here is wherein lies the problem and I have just now received the
letter that confirms my concerns. The school has issued a letter dated
September 16th that states: "It is impossible to imagine all conceivable
issues that may arise; therefore we reserve the right to interpret or
change the communications protocol in its sole discretion. If we
determine that you are not following our procedures, we will cancel the
enrollment of all of your children." This is what I am objecting to.
The communications protocol as published and outlined is what I agreed
to. I did not agree to comply with some moving target that the school
will change as necessary to keep me quiet.
>For example, your statement: " {daughter} especially would be
devastated by this and I feel certain this would be viewed as the
school's fault for admitting her under a false set of conditions" is in
my opinion, spinning things far and away from the truth.
There is no false set of conditions. We spoke in our original
call about what the conditions were. That you agree to follow a
communication protocol. You agreed and that hasn't changed. This is a
critical point to me in staying accurate. I see nothing more being
asked of you than what was originally agreed to. So if you agreed
these conditions, (which have not changed), and intend to comply, I
don't foresee any more problems for your family. <
Do you see now, from the statement that the conditions I agreed to
are, at the school's discretion, subject to change? I agreed to follow
the communications protocol and I will adhere to this agreement.
Changing the communications protocol is changing the conditions.
>Which is why your statement "it is unimaginable for me to
comply with a gag order in order to ensure that my kids will remain at
Highland Hall" is so confusing to me. How can you expect me to believe
you when you tell me you intend to comply with the court order, (by
following communication protocol,) which you told me in our phone call,
and then make that statement? What is the truth, Pete? Are you
intending to comply, or are you intending to violate it? Perhaps herein
lies the root of your outrage. <
The truth is exactly as I have stated it. I intend to comply with
the communications protocol as it was written when I signed it. I have
no problem with this. It is, however, the school's intention, as per
the letter they sent me, to suddenly expand or alter the conditions of
the communications protocol which has been in place for years and was
just published in this year's parent handbook. This, indeed, is the
roof of my outrage. I signed the court order, the conditions of the
communications protocol were set, and now they are intending to change
them. In fact, in the same letter they state "Because of the court
order requiring you to follow the communications protocol, the College
asked the Board's Executive Committee to review the College's decision
regarding {daughter}. She was allowed to return with the understanding that
you will follow the communication protocol as published in the Parent
Handbook with regard to any
communication having to do with Highland Hall. This is not
part of the communications protocol and in fact it is known to the
school that I participate in open forums about Waldorf education and
also that I receive inquiries from prospective parents directly about
Highland Hall. These types of communications are not at all relevant to
or covered by the communications protocol which applies to
communications regarding problems with teachers.
>(Please know that I will find it difficult to assist you in the future if indeed you decide to violate the court order.)<
Tony, I really appreciate that you have assisted me thus far.
Again, I am not going to violate the court order - it was a stipulated
order, not something the court ordered me to do against my will - I
agreed to it and it became an order. I am objecting to the school
altering what I have agreed to and attempting to convince me that this
is in fact what I agreed to as is evidenced by the above-quoted
statement that is definitely not contained in the communications
protocol. This kind of stuff is what makes me angry at the school.
>Considering that I asked you to call Ed to clear up a problem
once before and that led to another communication breakdown between the
two of you, I hesitate to have you two speak again. It seems you ignite
each other's fuses. <
I would be quite happy never to speak with Ed again. As I have
stated, he has control issues that I am not willing to comply with and
his childish attitude coupled with his anger is something I can do
without. I made an agreement with you and with the court and I am
sticking to it. In all the years I have been at this school, I have
never not lived up to an agreement. I have never lied about anything
and I have kept confidences I have agreed to keep. If the school expels
my children because they don't like what I am doing outside the
agreement, I will deal with that if and when it happens.
Thanks Tony - I know you think I am making something out of
nothing. Please, I encourage you to secure a copy of the September 16th
letter to me and explain to me why you think it was necessary. I would
be happy to fax you my copy.
Warm regards,
Pete
Here's the letter
