Fort Cherry School Board approved a 2011-12 preliminary budget that calls for no tax increase but includes the furlough of eight positions.
Observer-Reporter, 5/26/11
Board member Chris Lauff presented a budget to the board which would save enough money to eliminate the need to furlough teachers.
The administration did not take Lauff’s suggestions into consideration and instead presented a preliminary budget that included the furlough of legally and truthfully certified teachers.
The Board, under Dinnen’s recommendation, voted to approve the preliminary budget.
Thursday, June 2, 2011: The last day of school for FC students.
· 9:40 a.m. – Students were dismissed.
· 9:41 a.m. – Dinnen sent out an email to the teachers indicating the intent to furlough. Any attempt to locate Dinnen that morning after 9:41 a.m. to discuss the furloughs would prove to be unsuccessful.
Sadly, eight or nine of our teachers, those committed to our children, have been furloughed. If just one of those teachers has inspired just one child, and that teacher is no longer teaching at Fort Cherry, the board is not upholding its duty to our children.
And how has the board agreed for the administration to share in the burden of the budget cuts?
The administration “pledged” to donate back their “net” salary increases for the next year, will take a $10,000 reduction in a $50,000 travel allowance, and will take a $5,000 reduction in supplies and printing.
By following Dinnen’s recommendation and approving the preliminary budget, the board agreed to furlough legally and truthfully certified teachers while leaving the administration’s salaries and benefits nearly unscathed.
Let’s continue to take a look at the history of the certification of the one who suggested the furlough of legally and truthfully certified employees as a way to save money.
The PDE’s Clerical Error, part 5. . . .
Pennsylvania Certification
Pennsylvania considers the education of its children to be among the highest priorities of state government and has dedicated many resources toward that end.
Educators prepare for their responsibilities in the schools of the Commonwealth by the completion of
(1) state-approved teacher education programs including a student teaching or intern experience,
(2) Praxis I and Praxis II assessments and/or America Council Testing Foreign Language (ACTFL) and
(3) application materials documenting that all certificate requirements have been met. Those requirements have been raised significantly in recent years.
PA Department Of Education
http://www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pa_certification/8635
New Brighton 1997 :
From the time the PDE realized they had issued Dinnen’s LOE and Certificate in error, they encouraged Dinnen to appeal to the Certification Appeal Committee.
Donald Lunday explained the appeal process to Dinnen in their phone conversation on December 6, 1996:
“We also discussed his experience that was in question (higher education versus basic schools). I explained that we would complete our review expeditiously and would notify him of the results as soon as possible. In response to his questions, I explained the appeal process should he be denied the SLE. Dr. Dinnen also wanted to know if contacting the Secretary directly now could resolve the matter since the school board had already appointed him to the position, and he had been sworn to oath of office by a judge. I told him I could not answer for the Secretary, but if such a request were received, it probably would go to the PDE Chief Counsel. Additionally I told him that in such event, I personally would recommend that the Secretary use the certification appeal process to review the matter.”
Instead of appealing, Dinnen threatened to sue claiming his right to due process had been violated.
PDE Chief Counsel Jim Sheehan sent this letter to Dinnen’s attorney, asking him to reconsider and proceed with the appeal process. Dinnen had until March 14, 1997 to appeal:
As documented in Donald Lunday’s December 4 and 6, 1996, memos, Dinnen did not present evidence of experience in the basic (K-12) schools in his application to the PDE for his LOE and certificate:
“. . on November 27, 1996, Mr. Dinnen had been issued a Superintendent Letter of Eligibility in Error. The evaluator, in calculating his experience, had credited time that Mr. Dinnen served in Higher Education as experience towards the requirement for the SLE.”
“We also discussed his experience that was in question (higher education versus basic schools).”
Shown below is Dinnen’s “professional experiences directly related to teaching and educational administration” as submitted to the PDE evaluator. This was sent to the PDE by Dinnen with his original application for a superintendent letter of eligibility:
March 14, 1997: Dinnen’s chance to appeal expired.
March 18, 1997: Five months after Dinnen submitted his professional experience to the PDE in his original application, Dinnen’s attorney submitted the following letter:
Dinnen’s FAX to Levin:
(FAX TRANSCRIBED BELOW, PLEASE SCROLL DOWN)
Memorandum for Mike Levin
From: Bob Dinnen
Re: Dinnen Certification
Date: March 17, 1997
From our conversation yesterday, and as you requested, I am providing further background information on specific experiences that may add clarification to my professional education experience.
First, during the five years I was with Eastern Illinois University, August 1989 through August 1994, serving in the capacity of Chairman of the Military Science Department and Professor of Military Science, I also served, through administrative oversight and instruction, the Military Science Program (ROTC) at Mattoon Senior High School in Mattoon, Illinois. I must say that this was but one of my duties. As you know, High School ROTC programs are an integral part of the public education system in schools where offered.
In the capacity in which I served the High School I played an integral part in the education and development of those high school students in the program. I have asked for, and should receive shortly a letter from the Mattoon School District Superintendent attesting to the foregoing. Once it arrives, I will forward it to you. The duties I performed for the Mattoon High School included:
1. Rendered supervisory and administrative service, to include:
a. Evaluation of educational programs
b. Inspection and observation of classrooms
c. Coordination of school-community relations activities
d. Interviewing
e. Reviewing of master schedule
f. Conducting staff meetings
g. Establishment of program goals and objectives
2. Taught students in the area of Military Science including individualized and group instruction, to include:
a. Preparing lesson plans
b. Conducting lectures, demonstrations, and questions and answers
c. Moderating group interaction
d. Preparing evaluations
e. Setting goals, objectives, and standards
3. Advised, and counseled students, to include:
a. Conducting scholarship interviews
b. Discussing career opportunities
c. Modeling behavior
Also, as further clarification of my one and one half year experience with the State of Indiana’s Higher Education Commission, that experience also included policy formulation that directly impacted not only postsecondary, but also K-12 education.
Additionally, the Department’s view, through initial and subsequent review is that I have satisfied the program (educational) requirement for a certificate and LOE. Also the Department through initial review stated that I had met the professional experience and upon subsequent review had given me credit for one half year as Acting Superintendent. Hopefully, with the added clarification I have provided above, any questioning of experience with K-12 education will also be dispelled as it is over the six year requirement.
Mike, as we have discussed, the circumstances that have taken place over the course of the past few months are unfortunate, at best. My only aim is to serve the students and the taxpayers toward the betterment of their students’ education. Hopefully, the added information will help those in decision making positions in the Department to “sleep easy” knowing that I do possess the requisite professional experience necessary to serve no only the local community but also the Commonwealth.
If any further information is needed, please let me know.
March 20, 1997: Jim Sheehan sent this letter to Dinnen’s attorney.
March 20, 1997: The PDE filed a “rule to show cause”.
“On March 20, 1997, the Office of Postsecondary/Higher Education (hereinafter “Office”) commenced this action by filing a rule to show cause. The rule to show cause seeks to annul the letter of eligibility and superintendent’s certificate issued to Dr. Dinnen. The Office alleges that the letter of eligibility and superintendent’s certificate were erroneously issued because Dr. Dinnen lacks the professional experience required by the State Board of Education’s regulations.”
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary/Higher Education, Petitioner
-v-
Robert W. Dinnen, Respondent
Docket No. 1997-1
ADJUDICATION
Page 2
State law allows an unqualified person to act as a superintendent to fill a vacancy for one year. Dinnen was appointed Acting Superintendent in New Brighton effective May 1, 1996. The Rule to Show Cause was filed in March 1997. Had Dinnen followed the PDE’s advice and appealed his certification, there was a chance that he would lose the appeal and be forced to step down.
Dinnen did not appeal.
Dinnen sued the PDE, essentially delaying the decision on his certification beyond the May 1997 cut-off date.
April 14, 1997: Dinnen filed suit against the PDE citing:
1. Denial of Due Process
2. Denial of Equal Protection
3. Action for Declaratory Relief
4. Action in Mandamus
5. Interference With/Impairment of Contractual Relationship
“On April 17, 1997, Dr. Dinnen filed a timely answer to the rule to show cause denying that he has insufficient professional experience and asserting several affirmative defenses. In his answer, Dr. Dinnen raises the following grounds for dismissal of the Office’s rule to show cause:
1. The Office lacks authority to initiate proceedings to annul a certificate or letter of eligibility,
2. The initiation and adjudication of the revocation proceedings by the Department of Education violates Dr. Dinnen’s procedural due process rights,
3. The State Board of Education’s regulation setting forth the experience requirements for issuance of a letter of eligibility is invalid because it conflicts with the Public School Code of 1949, and
4. The State Board of Education’s regulation is volatile (sic) of Dr. Dinnen’s equal protection and substantive due process rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary/Higher Education, Petitioner
-v-
Robert W. Dinnen, Respondent
Docket No. 1997-1
ADJUDICATION
Pages 2-3
May 1997: Dinnen remained at New Brighton using taxpayer money to fight the PDE to keep his Letter of Eligibility and Superintendent Certificate that were issued due to a clerical error.
To be continued . .
