Members of the Hartland School Board voted 6-0 not to renew Tracey Sahouri's contract as an assistant principal at during a meeting Monday night. Treasurer Charlie Aberasturi was not in attendance.
Sahouri's current agreement extends through June 30, 2013 and stipulates that Superintendent Janet Sifferman has the ability to place her in any role she deems necessary. On Monday, Sifferman asked the board that Sahouri for the 2012-13 school year.
"Mrs. Sahouri's administrative contract will run for one more year at which time other arrangements will be made for her employment," said Board President Kevin Kaszyca. "She will not be fired from the district."
Sahouri's stems from allegations that she during her time at , where she was employed as principal until November of last year.
During the public comments portion of the meeting, several parents and current and former students spoke out in support of Sahouri maintaining her administrative position with the district.
Many reprimanded the board for how Sahouri's removal from Creekside was handled.
"You want to talk about administrators handling things badly?" said Hartland parent Michelle Gonzalez. "Maybe you should take a look at your own actions."
Others simply spoke of her character and cited personal experiences with Sahouri during her tenure with Hartland Consolidated Schools.
Keith Van Houten, a parent in the district, credited Sahouri for helping his family handle their son's illness "with the utmost professionalism as she helped us navigate that situation.
"Losing Tracey from an administrative position would be a tremendous loss for the district," he said.
Van Houten also questioned the "negative and caustic environment" he read about in reports available under the Freedom of Information Act. He wondered how that could exist in an climate where such good results have been produced.
"All of the positive you are hearing tonight about Mrs. Sahouri by far outweighs the one bad thing," Hartland High School senior Abby Militzer said. "She cares so much and she has the heart to be Vice Principal at Hartland High School."
Kaszyca said that the motives of the administration were not shadowed by the that Sahouri faced last summer.
"I also want to clarify for any of you that have read the state report and our own summary of our investigation, that this is not ... just about opening some test pamphlets and having them in an unsecured room," Kaszyca said.
"Our administrators are held to the highest standard," Kaszyca continued. "Leadership, trust, honesty, you cannot be an administrator in this district if you do not have those qualities. This board has never shied away from tough decisions."
Audience members, including Sahouri's husband Raed, spoke out that the decision to remove Sahouri from her administrative position was made long ago.
"I'm sorry, I can't just sit here and hear this without all of the truth being out there," Raed Sahouri said.
Sahouri said his wife was told in November to stop attending administrator meetings.
"What can you do? I'm fighting politics. I don't really have any response," Tracey Sahouri said after the vote.
"But my love will still remain with the children," she said. "I'll continue to be an assistant principal at the high school until the end of the year and give it my all."
Sahouri said she does plan for litigation.
This boards decisions lately have made me come to the conclusion that the best interest of the community is not their first priority. I agree with others that it's time to vote people onto the board that have the communities interest first as a priority. Between the gym situation at the high school and this decision, it's clear to me that it's time for some "new talent" on the board.
From my experience, those who become politically involved can usually point to a single incident that acted as the catalyst that changed them from being a casual observer to an activist*. On their own, those incidents may be viewed as relatively too minor to cause that change, but it's the accumulation of many incidents over time that really leads to the tipping point. *Personally, my catalyst was Sarah Palin's speech at the 2008 Republican Convention, but the change wouldn't have occurred without everything that led up to that point.
fact: They are lying when say the 2 situations re: Mrs. Sahouri aren't related. fact: Caroselli (former superintendant) gone from board for over 8yrs still runs things/board fact: In August Caroselli TOLD Sifferman to get rid of Sahouri quote"She's tarnished Hartland" fact: Sifferman and Caroselli controlled and informed the Board of ED how to act and what to do re: Sahouri cases fact: Board of ED is the BOSS over superintendant and should be telling her what to do FINAL FACT: TIME TO RID HARTLAND OF CAROSELLI AND SIFFERMAN AND ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER WHO CAN'T STAND ON THEIR OWN TO FEET!!!! We need people who are for our children and listen to the people of Hartland
Your "fact" 1 is probably unprovable. Your "fact" 2 is part fact (gone from board), and part what seems to be opinion (still runs things). "fact" 3 could be true, and would be important and act as supporting evidence for your "fact" 2. Same thing goes for "fact" 4 needing that evidence. "fact" 5 seems factual, although "should" is usually subjective. And the "FINAL FACT" is clearly an opinion. Please don't misuse the word "fact" the way PolitiFact.com misuses it :-)
Secondly, Ms. Sahouri did respond to the board in a written statement. I am not 100% certain but I would believe that at the advice of her attorney that she choose not to speak at the hearings. What good would it have done anyways? The board (or should I say Sifferman) had made up their minds already. Thirdly, Ms. Sahouri did not turn this into a "3-ring circus", the board of education and Sifferman did when they introduced this motion. Ms. Sahouri's contract wasn't even up till next year. Why did Sifferman bring the motion now? Fourthly, Citizens came out on their own and not by request of Ms.Sahouri to support her. Not ONCE did Ms. Sahouri ask me to support her or encourage me to speak or show up to these hearings. I did that on my own. I felt that this whole situation was handled extremely poorly by the board and I wanted to express my graditude to a professional (Ms. Sahouri) and share my personal experiences with the public. This is MY right. So how dare you insunate that anyone that spoke/supports her did it because Ms. Sahouri wanted to divert attention!!! I am now insulted.
Crystallball has been successful in expressing their view, and so whenever additional information is found, that information can be viewed through the framing Crystallball created to see if that new information supports/contradicts the assertions being made. So I'm open to the validity of the claims, but remain skeptical by default. Hence why I challenged Crystallball's comment, in hopes more evidence would be provided.
unless you can state some facts but you are posting here can be considered gossip. Your arguments aren't even in good form as you don't present any facts or logic to support your premises and your conclusions. If you want some facts, read the information that was obtained under FOIA. The info that was obtained was the notes from the interviews with the teachers at Creekside and which were done by the superintendent and assistant superintendent. There is also the report from the State regarding the MEAPS. Personally if I was being accused of some of the things contained in these reports I certainly would speak up and defend myself. I'd be more interested in saving my reputation and my job rather then setting things up for a lawsuit.
The below site explains more about the situation. It also contains the interviews that were conducted at the school: http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20120219/NEWS01/202190318/Climate-Hartland-s-Creekside-school-troubling-downloads-?odyssey=mod|mostview Some of what was reported: "A Creekside Elementary School teacher said she saw the former principal, Tracey Sahouri, share a writing prompt from the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test before testing — a violation of state rules — according to a report conducted by the state. The fact-finding report by the Michigan Department of Education is based on a state investigation Oct. 4-5 into MEAP test irregularities at the Hartland Township school, and investigators found "extensive circumstantial and behavioral observations indicate a climate of: politics, bullying, manipulation, tension and duplicity." The report's summary states that test information was "all over the building," according to teacher testimony, and that investigators were "delayed and hampered in their investigation" by Sahouri. The report also highlights a "troubling school climate" and "politically charged environment, with insiders whom Sahouri favored," as well as several pieces of "egregious evidence" — including test booklets "spread out and arrayed on two tables" in Sahouri's office — and also outlines numerous "unusual behaviors" that concerned state investigators".
I feel that you are being a bit hypocritical with your comments. Reason being, you are quoting other people's "opinions" and a news article. I for one, can testify that something that is printed in the news doesn't make it fact. Also, the report explicitly states that their information was from interviews conducted. Fact is, their CIRCUMSTANTIAL and behavioral OBSERVATIONS came from the investigators which got that from an interview. They had received an "anonymous" tip about the handling of the MEAP test. The interview you are quoting came from a disgruntled employee/teacher of Ms. Sahouri's. That interview should have been considered hostile as that person has had a vendetta against Ms. Sahouri . In a normal court of law, these "circumstantial and behavioral observations" are not considered admissable FACTS! You obviously don't have children in Creekside or have never worked there. I have volunteered in that school and have spent considerable hours there. I have NEVER observed, heard, felt or experienced ANY "troubling school climates". I've spoken with and have had several relationships/friendships with people in that school and never heard EVER of any reports that this article was claiming. You walked in that school and felt the positive atmosphere. All this is during MS. Sahouri's administration. Go there now and it's totally different.
Normal Labor Relations don't have to apply to Sifferman. If she doesn't want you for any reason, she will make you gone from the district in one fashion or another. This has been my personal observation and not only from Ms. Sahouri's incident either.
As to your comment about my postings being gossip is once again insulting to me. These are the facts as I know them and experienced. These are from mine and my sons observations and dealings. So please don't accuse me of gossip from my own FACTS.
Further I didn't quote anyone else's opinion. The statements I quoted is from the written report of the investigation by the state regarding the MEAP issue at Creekside. Also if you are going to quote my quotes you need to be honest and include the entire descriptors which were "extensive circumstantial and behavioral observations...", not just circumstantial as you stated. In addition, just last week I heard an attorney speaking on a late night show and she stated that sometimes a circumstantial case is even better then one with other evidence (this really surprised me). Further the investigation both by the state and later the administration was of multiple teachers, not just one. Just curious, how do you know it was a teacher that reported the MEAP indiscretions to the state? A month ago there were accusations that it was the fromer district superindendent. And a final clarification, I wrote that unless you can present facts your writings could be considered gossip. I get that you and some others are upset but it appears to be time to put it to rest. Chances are there is a lot more behind the scence that we aren't privy to. I think your and others efforts would be better served by focusing on your kids.
What makes the statements written in the report any more factual than the statements made by Michele? If Michele was asked questions by those writing the report, and she provided her statement, and it was included in the report, would that then make it factual? The teachers making their statements that were then transcribed in the report are no more valid or invalid than personal statements not transcribed in the report. Now the number of different teachers providing similar statements can make for a stronger case, but it still does not make it automatically factual. If the police interview a witness to a crime, does that witness's testimony become factual? But if the police didn't interview him/her, so instead the witness gives their testimony to the public, is it no longer factual? You want this to be "apples & oranges" when it's really "apples & apples".
For one I didn't state that a teacher was the one that made the anonymous tip. READ my statement again. Another thing, "just last week I heard an attorney speaking on a late night show" Seriously??? I'm not gonna say anymore on that. If you wants facts then here are some for you... Not a single teacher/employee or any other person in Creekside had a copy of the MEAPS. Those were locked in Ms. Sahouri's office. The kids were given alternative tests and got very respective scores. Not a single person stated that they had first hand information on the MEAP. No one saw the tests. Ms. Sahouri has been an excellent administrator, has impacted so many lives in a positive way and the way the school board handled the whole situation is depolorable. Any other employee/administrator wouldn't have been treated this way if Sifferman liked them. Also, I want to point out that other admins have treated the MEAPS in the exact same way as Ms. Sahouri did and wasn't reprimanded or had their jobs affected. Those are the facts that I have witnessed and experienced. And to your rude comment of focusing my efforts on my child, this affected my child and it does pertain to all the children in Creekside and the High School. How dare you?
I meet someone similar to you before. He was in school for social work. He'd learn theories of interviewing in social work and go to the ice arena, sit with the parents, and practice his interviewing skills. Not real appropriate, however, he did get to practice his now found skills. What I'm thinking about you is that you are in law school. I'm thinking you look for a controversial issue to throw your 2 cents into for no other reason but to practice some skills. Do you really thing that's appropriate? Finally to address your comments, and this is the last time I will be do so (I think it's morally wrong to use others) no it's not apples to oranges when the intent of the investigation was a specific fact finding mission. It's my understanding Ms. Shaouri is pursuing litagation so it's highly probably depostions will be taken from many including those that gave statements to state as well as school investigators. I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes if they did not give factual statements during their interview. Finally regarding Michele and her "statements" some of them are fairly outrageous, appear to be originating from an emotional place and not from a logical one. In other words, she's upset and I get it, but it's a done deal. Whoever believes Ms.Sahouri was treated wrongly needs to put it aside and focus on their kids and how they can end the school year on a successful note. Though I don't agree with Michele I do have empathy for her.
I appreciate the compliment, but I am not in law school. I do enjoy "practicing" logic, as that is what I try to do in these conversations. I'm not sure how that is inappropriate, but I'm open to hearing why you feel that way ;-) This is a place for community discussion. Like you, I enjoy giving the best input I have to give. Sometimes, that input is additional information that others may not be aware of. Sometimes, the input is to state a position that no one else had yet vocalized. And sometimes, as is the case in this discussion, I try to be somewhat of a moderator, keeping the other commenters consistent in their reasoning. While I was never on a debate team in school, I do see the enjoyment in keeping track of points/counterpoints. And in a way similar to the Supreme Court hearings on the ACA, it's fun to play devil's advocate in questioning someone who is taking a position, to see if that position stands up to rational scrutiny. I welcome and encourage others to challenge any position that I take, but when I don't have a position on a given issue, I'll challenge those who do in order to strengthen the discussion. I'm sorry if you do not care for such an approach to these forums, but I see no harm in what I do. As always though, I'm open to being persuaded, if you have an argument against my actions :-)
"Whoever believes Ms.Sahouri was treated wrongly needs to put it aside and focus..." It's easy to say that if you agree with the decision. But if you disagreed with the decision- if you felt an injustice was done, would you still think it is best to just "put it aside" rather than fight against the injustice?
Last I looked, this is the comments section of an online publication. I don't see any evidence of Jordan making personal attacks or otherwise violating the terms of service, and his responses aren't any more or less appropriate than any other comments here. People are free to give their opinion/perspective, ask questions, etc. If someone takes the time to post a comment, it's pretty much fair game for others to respond to it in whatever way they wish, provided their comments fall within the TOS. Of course, the alternative is to not post at all. When I don't like or agree with something I read here, I have the choice to respond or to scroll on by. But if I'm going to join in the discussion, I fully expect that others are going to respond. Online comments are tricky, as things like tone and facial expressions are absent, and so often there are repeated back-and-forth discussions as people try to better understand each other. I think it's rather dull for when everyone just sits around agreeing with each other and I happen to like it when someone plays devil's advocate, as it often makes the discussion that much more interesting.
I was wondering when you'd reappear Linda :)