From Kathy Lendvay fowler http://www.tnonline.com/2017/jul/20/palmerton-district-answers-suit I’m truly saddened when I open my newspaper and see yet another story about difficulties within the Palmerton Area School District. It happens so often now and I really wish it would stop, as I’m sure you do too. The latest article is about Superintendent Engler denying a charge of retailiation filed by Principal Husar. As I read the article, however, several questions occurred to me. Are you troubled as well? 1. I have heard that Mr. Engler reported all zeros on his evaluation of Mrs. Husar for the 2015-2016 year, yet the newspaper clearly states the evaluation represented an average of 1.15. What I do know is that other state measurements within the school profile were high enough to average his zeros up to 1.15, a Satisfactory rating. Why did Mr. Engler choose not to consider them in his evaluation? 2. Robin Snyder, attorney for the district and Mr. Engler stated: “After the filing of the complaint in Carbon County and a mediation session, the evaluation was changed to satisfactory to forego the challenges in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County or with other appropriate administrative agencies.” What this statement means is that after Mrs. Husar’s complaint was filed and after a mediation session was held, the evaluation was changed to satisfactory. Why was the rating changed to satisfactory? It is my understanding that the score was incorrectly summarized as unsatisfactory by Mr. Engler and changed only after a complaint was filed. 3. As someone who spent years as a manager of subordinates, I wondered how diligently Mr. Engler worked with Mrs. Husar on a performance improvement plan (PIP). In my opinion, a rating of all zeros on an evaluation also reflects badly on the manager, as it appears that no guidance he should have offered her was able to change the ratings. How diligently did Mr. Engler work with Mrs. Husar to guide her professional development? For example, how soon after the evaluation did Mr. Engler sit down with Mrs. Husar to discuss the expectations of her improvement plan? In my practice as a manager, the PIP is delivered within days of receipt of the evaluation, in order to discuss steps to improve performance, and to establish a schedule, so that the employee can begin immediately to work on areas highlighted in the PIP, and has sufficient time to affect change before the next evaluation. What I have learned is that the PIP was not delivered immediately and in fact took months to reach Mrs. Husar. I cannot comment on the contents of the plan. What I can say, is that in my experience as a manager, Mr. Engler’s actions toward Principal Husar raise concerns in my mind about his ability to effectively manage personnel. 4. The following statement in the Times News article prompts many questions for me: “’According to Husar, her initial legal action stems from an interview with board members regarding the job performance of Engler, whose contract was being considered for renewal.” “Despite the assurances by the district’s school board that (Husar’s) comments regarding Mr. Engler’s job performance would remain confidential, the district communicated the opinions to Mr. Engler and others,” Husar’s attorneys, John Dean and Mark Bufalino, wrote in the county complaint.’” Really?? If a promise of confidentiality was broken, this is serious indeed. In my experience, this would be grounds for a reprimand or possibly even dismissal. Confidentiality is critical, and when breached, can cause raters to be reluctant to participate in any future evaluations. It can also cause retaliation by the person being evaluated against the raters. It appears, from this article, that we do not know who breached the promise of confidentiality, although the article does state that “…Snyder acknowledged the board did meet with members of the administrative team.” Was there retaliation? The article is unclear as to whether that has been proven, but what we do read is that, according to Mrs. Husar’s attorneys , “After Husar’s comments about Engler’s job performance were revealed, she faced harassing, hostile and discriminatory comments.” We also read that in November of 2016 “Husar filed a gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, age discrimination and retaliation claim against the district and Engler before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.” Obviously Mrs. Husar believes that very serious retaliation was affected by Mr. Engler. 5. The article concludes with this statement. “A case management conference in the federal lawsuit is scheduled for late August.” This date is an ominous one, because Mr. Engler’s contract expires in January of 2018 and he must be given 150 days notice if his contract will not be renewed. This means that a decision regarding his contract must be made prior to the end of August and before the conference in the federal lawsuit. Can the school board, in good conscience, renew Mr. Engler’s contract without knowing how the federal lawsuit will be resolved? Is there any legal precedence for delaying a contract decision pending a lawsuit resolution? And if Mr. Engler’s contract is renewed, can it be revoked if the lawsuit finds in Mrs. Husar’s favor? 6. Finally, the article states that “the district has confirmed a personnel hearing on July 26, and social media posts indicate the topic is Husar’s suspension.” I plan to attend this meeting at 6:00 PM in the Parkside building, and I hope that you will join me.