RSCC office staff

[jsteele]

Earlier I posted a warning about naming people. A number of posters chose not to pay attention and, as a result, I have removed nearly a page of posts.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Earlier I posted a warning about naming people. A number of posters chose not to pay attention and, as a result, I have removed nearly a page of posts.

Well that is certainly a shame as a number of great points had been made. I hope those parents can regather their thoughts and reply again to what they had earlier stated, minus the names. I'm still not sure why Betsy's name can be all over this thread, but the other directors and the CEO can't be named (when their names are public anyway on the RSCC site or through a simple google search).

[Anonymous]

Anyway you can repost and just XXX the names? Can you give some guidelines on whose name can be said and whose can't? If the post is not malicious can a name be said? If the name is public info on the website, can it be said? The last posts I read, although a couple of hours ago, did reference 2 directors by name (different posts), but it was just a reference, not accusatory, so not sure what is allowed and what isn't.

Absolutely agree that name calling should not be allowed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Earlier I posted a warning about naming people. A number of posters chose not to pay attention and, as a result, I have removed nearly a page of posts.

Well that is certainly a shame as a number of great points had been made. I hope those parents can regather their thoughts and reply again to what they had earlier stated, minus the names. I'm still not sure why Betsy's name can be all over this thread, but the other directors and the CEO can't be named (when their names are public anyway on the RSCC site or through a simple google search).

Betsy mentioned her own name. Prior to that, almost every mention of her name was in the context of people praising her. There is a big difference between that and mentioning someone's name while criticizing their salary or describing their shower.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway you can repost and just XXX the names? Can you give some guidelines on whose name can be said and whose can't? If the post is not malicious can a name be said? If the name is public info on the website, can it be said? The last posts I read, although a couple of hours ago, did reference 2 directors by name (different posts), but it was just a reference, not accusatory, so not sure what is allowed and what isn't.

Absolutely agree that name calling should not be allowed.

Because I don't have the time, energy, or interest to make Solomonic judgements about the context of each and every name -- let alone research whether it is on some website I've never seen -- please just don't mention names.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway you can repost and just XXX the names? Can you give some guidelines on whose name can be said and whose can't? If the post is not malicious can a name be said? If the name is public info on the website, can it be said? The last posts I read, although a couple of hours ago, did reference 2 directors by name (different posts), but it was just a reference, not accusatory, so not sure what is allowed and what isn't.

Absolutely agree that name calling should not be allowed.

Because I don't have the time, energy, or interest to make Solomonic judgements about the context of each and every name -- let alone research whether it is on some website I've never seen -- please just don't mention names.

Well said!!!

[Anonymous]

Ok, let me try this again:

My child has been at RSCC since the new facility opened 3 years ago. I am not on the board and not affiliated with any of the parties involved, but when bombs were dropped on the Exec Director, I felt the need to speak up.

Our experience at RSCC has been wonderful, and it is a real disservice to claim that Betsy is the heart and soul of the school. The true foundation of the school are the wonderful teachers and staff, and the Executive Director has done an outstanding job of keeping turnover low and demanding parents happy.

I applaud the Executive Director and the President for standing up against favoritism and for sticking up for the kids and families who do not “hang out” with Betsy. As an administrator, Betsy should remain neutral instead of developing external relationships with families. Going to the office should be a punishment, not “yay, I get to hang out with my friend Betsy!” (Note: this is different than paying a teacher to babysit, as the babysitter is still in a position of authority with the child).

Yes, Betsy is a very nice person. But when I can’t stop in to the office to ask a question, because another family is lounging around Betsy’s desk like it was their personal living room, lines have been crossed.

Our experience at RSCC post-Betsy has remained the same, if not slightly better, because now I can ask a simple question without being surrounded by an audience of bystanders. So yes, stop whining!

[Anonymous]

Office lounger here......why so upset pp? I personally like having a relationship with the directors and regularly check in with them. That is all of them. Not sure why you have issue with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let me try this again:

My child has been at RSCC since the new facility opened 3 years ago. I am not on the board and not affiliated with any of the parties involved, but when bombs were dropped on the Exec Director, I felt the need to speak up.

Our experience at RSCC has been wonderful, and it is a real disservice to claim that Betsy is the heart and soul of the school. The true foundation of the school are the wonderful teachers and staff, and the Executive Director has done an outstanding job of keeping turnover low and demanding parents happy.

I applaud the Executive Director and the President for standing up against favoritism and for sticking up for the kids and families who do not “hang out” with Betsy. As an administrator, Betsy should remain neutral instead oof developing external relationships with families. Going to the office should be a punishment, not “yay, I get to hang out with my friend Betsy!” (Note: this is different than paying a teacher to babysit, as the babysitter is still in a position of authority with the child).

Yes, Betsy is a very nice person. But when I can’t stop in to the office to ask a question, because another family is lounging around Betsy’s desk like it was their personal living room, lines have been crossed.

Our experience at RSCC post-Betsy has remained the same, if not slightly better, because now I can ask a simple question without being surrounded by an audience of bystanders. So yes, stop whining!

It's about time someone said something positive!!! More power to you!
Good always conquer's bad.

[Anonymous]

Can we get back to the issue…..Board, what are you going to do about the situation? Pretend nothing happened? Betsy’s termination was wrongful and not appropriate. There is no policy and she was singled out for behavior not expected to be followed by all directors. That is an issue that needs addressing. Before the post was taken down, it was brought up that other directors had personal parties and accepted gifts from parents. It is either ok or it isn’t. Some parents see directors and teachers as extension of family, but if there is a rule the school wants to make, then all should follow. I still can’t believe this ridiculousness and how the school lost a bright leader. That is not to dimish the others aren't also shining stars, but there was no real reason for her dismissal.

Maybe I’m confused because what is the purpose of the board? I would think you would have veto power or oversight over these type of issues.

For 20:43, there wasn’t favoritism on Betsy’s part because I have seen her treat all kids and parents in a friendly, but professional manner. It’s not uncommon for kids to stop into the office every evening to get a sticker from her, get a goodbye hug, or even “clock out”. Yes, there are kids that have a special card they get to push through the time machine. Who cares. That is what the kids like and she was more then happy to oblige. Maybe if you weren’t so opposed to the “hanging out” you would see that. By the way, Betsy didn’t actively go collecting parents and kids to chill in office in the evening. She was always working at her desk, but she did welcome office loungers. She could have easily told parents and kids she needed to work and closed the office doors, but she never did. She had an “open door” policy that made her easy to talk to about our children and her nature made her very assessable to talk to. All her “hanging out” usually left her working to late hours in the evening.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for bringing the focus back to the real issue and the reason this blog started in the first place. Lets hope the board has to ability and nerve to remedy the unfairness now present atRSCC.

[Anonymous]

I strongly disagree that the terminated employee did not play favorites with children and families. She absolutely did and even my child noticed it. I also have heard her gossip about families and much of what she had to say was not nice at all. I wonder what some of her defenders would say if they knew what she was saying behind their backs.

As for the Board, I discussed this issue with Board members rather than venting anonymously on the internet. I suggest that anyone who actually wants a discussion or answers do the same. And before a poster once again makes vague allegations of threats to be kicked out for raising concerns, I'd note that several other posters on this board have responded to those posts with requests for information, which has not be provided. But back to the board and others in the office, I understand that in situations like this there are limits as to what can be said, especially when the terminated employee is making threats of legal action (involving a lawyer even before she was fired according to her own post - which is odd and suggests that there is much she isn't saying). The whole thing is strange because I always understood that in Maryland you can be fired for almost any reason so I'm not sure what it gets her even if her firing was "unfair" or people disagree with it. But whatever. When people are fired at my office I'm not entitled to the nitty gritty details and I don't see this situation as any different. Kudos to the administration for remaining professional throughout all this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As for the Board, I discussed this issue with Board members rather than venting anonymously on the internet. I suggest that anyone who actually wants a discussion or answers do the same.

Would you be willing to share the gist of their position? My family is fairly new to the school and I don't feel comfortable approaching them directly at this point. I'm not taking sides but I'd really love to hear their position though I know legally they probably can't post it here. I think it would help to both appease angry parents and to remedy some of the damage to the school's reputation that the debate is causing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to the issue…..Board, what are you going to do about the situation? Pretend nothing happened? Betsy’s termination was wrongful and not appropriate. There is no policy and she was singled out for behavior not expected to be followed by all directors. That is an issue that needs addressing. Before the post was taken down, it was brought up that other directors had personal parties and accepted gifts from parents. It is either ok or it isn’t. Some parents see directors and teachers as extension of family, but if there is a rule the school wants to make, then all should follow. I still can’t believe this ridiculousness and how the school lost a bright leader. That is not to dimish the others aren't also shining stars, but there was no real reason for her dismissal.

Maybe I’m confused because what is the purpose of the board? I would think you would have veto power or oversight over these type of issues

Why are you communicating with your Board on a public forum such as this? Why not go directly to them with your concerns? Seems more than a little disfunctional and passive aggressive.

[Anonymous]

I totally get remaining anonymous with this (and we don’t know that the pp didn’t talk to any of the board members)…..I’m sure many of the parents at this school do not have a real appreciation of when other parents spoke of retribution and being and feeling threatened. I have seen this happen. I have seen board members kicked off for not going with the president’s agenda. For this reason I will remain anonymous.

Please don’t come back with reasons on why this isn’t so or how people are whining. If it is an issue that has affected more then one person, then it is an issue. Consider yourself lucky if you have no problem with this termination or with the board’s stance/lack of. I can see why you adamantly feel the need to defend the school. You believe that parents are whining and just not getting over it. I think it has been established there is no issue regarding the teachers. Just asking to take a step back from your defenses and realize that there may be more to the story then what you know and that is why parents are upset.

I feel for you board. I wouldn’t want to be in your position right now. So much for fun volunteering at your child’s preschool. I hope we are all able to come to a swift and fair conclusion for all parties and put this behind us.