Thursday, August 7, 2008

Decisions, decisions

I’ve decided to address the issues in the posting below separately. It will keep it shorter, and give people the opportunity to comment on the individual topics.

The first one is the refrain that keeps coming back, and that it is all about people not agreeing with the decisions that have been made. While some decisions have been admittedly bad, people accept that many decisions are a judgment call. If a good decision making process was followed, and the decider stands up for the decision, most people will accept it, even if they don’t agree with it. What irks people about Denise is that it appears that these are simply missing, or her flip-flopping on what she said was reason behind the decision when challenged. Maybe she doesn’t want to or doesn’t feel the need to communicate why she does something, but when it is our money, our kids, our school and our church, we are owed that.

As an example, take the switch in uniform companies. I thought Flynn and O’Harra did a pretty good job in producing a quality product at a fair price. Uniforms were available for pickup when they came into the school, and their mail order turn-around was fantastic. Her decision to switch companies is hers to make and could be based on a number of factors. It could be that the school is getting a bigger kickback, er, “contribution” from the uniform company, it could be that they are cheaper, or it could be that she prefers the salesman of one company over another.

When it was discovered the Flynn and O’hara contract had been terminated, and Denise was asked about it, she sputtered and stammered a few different tales, some quite amusing. She claimed one time that it was about a kickback, er, “contribution” that somehow had gotten lost at Holy Cross after Flynn and O’hara sent it and they did not tell them the check was not cashed. Another early one was somehow implying that Flynn and Ohara had cancelled the contract, which is totally ridiculous. One can still buy the higher quality uniforms from Flynn and O’Hara, so why would they cancel the agreement where the school agrees to purchase their uniforms from them?

It is especially telling that her old school went back to Flynn and O’Hara as soon as she left. Also telling was the fiasco with the new company and the gym uniforms...remember how they were falling apart, logos fading quickly after washing?

Even more interesting was that her old school decided to have Flynn and O’Harra gives the 10% kickback, I mean contribution, directly back to the parents. Wouldn’t that be nice?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I recognize your need to remain anonymous, so to some degree I read and try to fill in the blanks. I have no context for this one. Please be more descriptive...1. When and with what audience did Mrs. Jacono make these statements? 2. As far as I remember, Mrs. J followed through on "best practices" for use of gym uniforms as they were never required by previous administrations. So why blame this on her? My complaints about that company went right to the company. Are there details here that I am missing? Does she make the uniforms; does she own the company...Help me out here!!

The Quizzinator said...

1. She made those statements to parents who asked her about them. I think I can get one of the people she spoke to to comment a bit more directly.

2. I'm not "blaming" the gym uniforms on her. That is a minor point, here. The decision to have the uniforms isn't the debate; if she thinks the uniform was a good idea, so be it. The fact that they were defective (although they did apologize, and they wre replaced) should have been a warning.

3. I don't think she owns the uniform company. I suspect that the school gets a bigger "cut" from this company, but I may be wrong. The main issue I see is that she changed her answer at least three times, none of which made a lot of sense.

As has been said, I really don't care that she switched companies, and this is an EXAMPLE of her decision making "process" and/or her ability/desire to communicate. There may have been a good reason to do so, but if you go away from an existing supplier that has provided satisfactory service with one that isn't quite as good...don't you think she should be able to give a reasonable explanation.

Anonymous said...

Again Quiz, there are too many holes in your "example".

"I suspect that the school gets a bigger "cut" from this company, but I may be wrong."
-Quizzinator

Quiz, when you make an argument it has to be rooted in evidence, not suspicion.

"I really don't care that she switched companies, and this is an EXAMPLE of her decision making "process" and/or her ability/desire to communicate."
-Quizzinator

What exactly does it exemplify Quiz? Your lack of specificity is scary. I wonder if your children or spouse have witnessed you waffle? Or better yet how about your coworkers have they witnessed this in you? What might they call it?

Quiz, are you familiar with the movie "The Cain Mutiny"? If not check out how much you relate to the character portrayed by Steve MacMurray...Be sure to watch the whole movie(I say "whole movie" because of your penchant to publish half truths and inuendo)to see how MacMurray's character is treated in the end...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I think you may be missing the point. What the uniform change exemplifies it that she often gives different reasons for this (and other) changes. It makes you question it because you don’t know which one to believe. I’ve heard a few different reasons for this change. The night of the survey meeting she said it was cancelled because of a check Holy Cross never cashed and Flynn never mentioned. Earlier she implied to some that Flynn cancelled their contract. Kinda makes you wonder.

Anonymous said...

The words "implied" and "wondering" lead me to two conclusions: you did not ask. I made it a point to speak with her several times. While I did not many times I did not like what she had to say, she was forthcoming and honest with her answers. The difference is I asked for an appointment, spoke with her and got some facts.

This uniform issue never hit my radar. I had troubles with the gym uni. I bought an ugly tie, I found out later that I did not need. There were things I flat out handled myself. Not an issue for the school principal...So again I ask those of you anonymous complainers, what specific changes do you want from Mrs. Jacono?

I ask this question because to date, the only things that folks have spouted off on here is that they don't like her! Where is the meat of your complaint?

The Quizzinator said...

You mean other than giving three different indirect answers to a question? The inability to come up with a logical reason why she does things LIKE the switch in uniform companies?

I don't want to get fixated on this issue because it wasn't a big deal for most, but it illustrated her inability to communicate, her refusal to give a straight answer, and, as there were several months that went by between when she ended the contract with Flynn and O'Harra and she announced the new one, that cost the school money.

This was one example that I picked on one area. There are many stories, and maybe the next one will hit home. Everyone is different; maybe you don't think the Internet filtering is all that important, or that she gave different answers for that, too. She said it was fixed, and it wasn't, and it still isn't. Again, it isn't about the Internet filtering (for some) but that she misled the parents in saying it was fixed. There are more parts of the issue, but it goes with what was said here, as well.

And yes, I do know that her old school went back to Flynn and O'Hara, and that there web site did say that they were giving the 10% contribution to the parents. My posting was very clear that I don't know why she switched, or if it was for more (or less) money. As I said, there may have been a good reason for it...but her answers shifted the responsbility of the action TWICE from people other than herself. Why did she feel the need to try to hide the reason?

Anonymous said...

Quiz, I want to know what it is that you want her to do exactly? Her personality is non-negotiable. You have no say. She runs the building, you have no say. She has tightened the reigns on volunteers in her building. You have no say. She has given directives to teachers. Some may have quit as a result. You have no say. It seems your issue is control. You need to recognize that the building principal runs the day to day operations of a school..not a daycare center for whiny, complaining parents!! She needs better PR no doubt. She needs a softer image perhaps. But you have no say. Once you recognize your role as parent and offer your support you might be surprised at how well you and the admin get along!!

Anonymous said...

"You mean other than giving three different indirect answers to a question?"

That you did not personally witness.

"The fact that they were defective (although they did apologize, and they wre replaced) should have been a warning."

A "warning"? What does this mean?

"I suspect that the school gets a bigger "cut" from this company, but I may be wrong."

There is that word "suspect" again!

The main issue I see is that she changed her answer at least three times, none of which made a lot of sense.

Never once have I heard you say that you spoke with her and you got three different answers! He said she said stuff.

There may have been a good reason to do so, but if you go away from an existing supplier that has provided satisfactory service with one that isn't quite as good...don't you think she should be able to give a reasonable explanation.

This is not a bad point. She should communicate with us better about uniform expectations. I have no intimate knowledge of this issue. I will get the information appropriately.

Anonymous said...

Actually I heard two different stories from her myself.

The Quizzinator said...

A few points....

1. I have either heard her myself say the things, have had family members hear these things, or talked to people who these things happened to directly. I keep things deliberatly vague because of the fear of retribution...and if you think this is a false fear, try talking to the person who simply was a facilitator at the parents meeting in February, or people who they suspected of being behind it.

2. Speculation is just that...speculation. The fact that the schools get a contribution from the uniform companies is a fact. You tried to take a quote out of context where I suggested one possible reason. I don't think that it would be a bad reason, necessarily. It could be that the uniforms from Rush are a dollar or two cheaper,or that the school gets a bigger contribution (and the use of the term "kickback" IS inflamtory, but deliberately so). The point is that you don't know, either, so she obviously did not communicate her reasons.

3. For about the 4th time, the point isn't about the uniforms. I don't care which company we use, but when asked, she should be able to give a good reason to overturn a long standing relationship. You pointed out that she did not communicate this well, and I'll blog on some other times and areas that she did not. That IS one of the major points- her inablity or refusal to communicate on these matters. Look at the parking fiasco-not what happened, but her failure to communicate including listening to people who tried to help her. There are other examples that I am sure we can provide.

As for the public school bit...actually, you WOULD get more response from a public school adminstration on some of these issues. That is not the point, however. At issue, perhaps, IS the relative role of parent and administrator...and maybe I'll post something on that. Most schools would kill to have the type of parental involvement that HC had in past years.

Anonymous said...

The you "have no say" comment is the crux of the matter. The school is a business and it provides a service to its customers. We are its customers. Customers always have a "say".
On the other hand, our current principle appears to agree with your take on things. Most businesses run by that type of management fail.

Anonymous said...

Its Fred MacMurray--not Steve MacMurray (the Caine Mutiny comment).

The crux of true leadership isn't "control", its motivating those around you to share your goals--fostering commonality of purpose. If we are going to discuss "control" in relation to children, then parents--both legally and morally--have the ultimate "control" in deciding how the child should be educated.

A responsible and effective educator understands and appreciates this fundamental reality--and responds accordingly--by taking into account and to the degree possible responding in a positive way to parental concerns. Holy Cross is not "her" school--it is the parish's school, and the parishoners school, and is indeed the parents' school.