CBSD “Board Notes”: the party line, amplified, according to the game plan. Again.

Our board majority, not content with their monthly opportunity to speak at any length they choose, to browbeat the board minority, to cheer on openly partisan public comment with which they agree and to rebuke those with differing opinions, to set the agenda of what items may be raised for discussion by the board, and to limit public comment at will, shared their own views of what’s happening in our district in this month’s edition of “Board Notes.”

Evidently they do not feel their one-sided presentation of the state of the district has won public support. Evidently they feel a need to do more to broadcast their “narrative” of recent events.

This follows a concerning pattern we have seen over the past months. A pattern that tends to obscure some issues and delegitimize some claims of wrongdoing, making it hard for our community to consider many complex multifaceted issues independently and thoughtfully.

Here is what we’ve observed:

1. Ignore/minimize complaints about some of the alleged wrongdoing. Hope that it never comes to light and/or all blows over.

2. Construct an alternate “narrative” to the allegation—a story that employs some of the facts, omits the relevant ones, and twists the rest.

3. Include a person to scapegoat, a target for all the blame—a teacher or teachers, board directors, media, etc. who allegedly caused the problem in the first place.

4. Hire an attorney to “investigate”: to find facts that will support the “narrative,” ignore any and all facts to the contrary, and cast aspersions on anyone who asked pertinent questions. Make no attempt to solve the original issue, which officially never existed, nor to speak to those most hurt by the alleged wrongdoing.

5. Conduct a one-sided show trial at a school board meeting. Claim utter innocence on the district’s part and utter wickedness on the part of those who raised the alarm. Present selective “evidence” to maximize the canonization of friends and the vilification of enemies.

6. Use the bully pulpit as a bullhorn to the community. Repeat the “narrative” with increasing frequency and volume.

7. Assume a wounded victim posture while whipping up anger in the community against the original whistle-blower.

8. Use the scapegoat freely. Deflect blame onto them and blame all negative press on them.

9. Declare that anyone who supported that person is an “elitist” who “wants to burn it down.”

10. Repeat ad infinitum.

This edition of “Board Notes” appears to target steps 6-10.

1984 by George Orwell was never meant as an instruction manual. We need a new game plan. 

We do not intend to waste time rebutting the most recent “Board Notes” point by point, but we will address just one topic to give you a sense of the through-the-looking-glass quality of this document.

Here is what the “Board Notes” had to say about the lawsuit pending against the district:

CBSD’s Counsel, Mike Levin, gave a legal update to the community regarding the Cartee-Haring and Marinello vs. Central Bucks School District. The update included information regarding a settlement demand to the district for $120,000,000.00. CBSD’s council has never recommended settlement to the board and the district’s lawyer stated publicly that, “no unlawful discrimination” occurred in our district. A settlement of this size would certainly cause a sizable tax increase as well as potential furloughing of teachers, canceling of school athletic programs, canceling of school theater and musical arts programs, canceling of school transportation for district students, as well as private school transportation and potentially other measures. The plaintiff’s counsel has expressed hope that with a change to the current board make-up, a new board may be more interested in a settlement. Watch presentation @ minute 16:37

And here are our observations:

• It may well be true that the district’s lawyers have never recommended settlement. They have steadfastly insisted for 3 years that they would never settle, then asked the lawyer for the plaintiffs for a settlement offer, then blamed the plaintiff’s lawyer for not sending one sooner. Now they are using this initial, opening offer to foment anger and division in the community and elect their slate.

• While the district’s lawyer does not favor settlement, the judge sure does (see addendum below). He has said numerous times that it would be in the district’s best interest to make an offer rather than risk the much greater amount that the court could award the plaintiffs should the case go to trial. The purpose of a settlement is to reduce the total amount owed, in addition to avoiding court costs and lawyers’ fees. If the district, despite its lawyers’ advice, is in fact guilty or likely to be found guilty, settlement is the least expensive option.

• It surprises no one that CBSD’s lawyers say that “no unlawful discrimination” occurred in the district. CBSD paid him to evaluate their legal risk for the community’s perception and he’s not about to say publicly, “Yeah, it’s not looking good.” Three hundred and fifty women, and their lawyer, believe otherwise. They say they were deceived: told that CB never gives credit for all the years served in other districts, although many men were awarded their full number of years. Some men were awarded years they did not have and academic credits they had not yet achieved. This is a matter of public record. It is undeniable that many men were given credit and many women were not. The district has argued that the job qualifications were different, that the men had expertise the women lacked. This will be difficult to prove. But they do not deny that such a differential exists because it is undeniable.

• A settlement offer gives rise to 4 possible options:

You accept that initial offer.

You make a counter offer and negotiate.

You go to trial and win. You pay nothing other than lawyers’ fees-- plus lost credibility with current employees and potential future applicants.

You go to trial and lose. You pay a whole heck of a lot, plus lawyers’ fees, plus damages.

We see no attempt to address two of these options. CB appears to imply that our only options are to pay the entire settlement request or win the lawsuit. Unfortunately, we must live in the real world, governed by reality.

• The claim that an award of this size would hurt the district’s finances is irrelevant. It’s tantamount to saying that you should only have to pay back small amounts of money, if the courts determine that you stole it, because you can’t afford to give back a fortune. Defrauding women out of their rightful pay is illegal, no matter what. Doing it many times amounting to millions of dollars doesn’t make it better. Enormity is not a mitigating factor.

• If the court finds that the district did defraud women, systematically, over decades, they will have to make that right. We cannot possibly accept that it’s the burden of women teachers to float the district by submitting to less pay than their male peers.

• That little dig at the end, about the plaintiff’s lawyer’s hope that a new board will look more favorably on the possibility of settlement, amounts to electioneering. Having presented the evidence one-sidedly, now they imply that they themselves are the only bulwark against the district’s financial woes. Never mind that a settlement may well save the district millions, nor that their case will be very difficult to defend. No: they wrap up this paragraph with a note to their supporters to vote for the status quo. The accusation is a confession.

One can easily imagine the harm to the morale of all our teachers, past, present, and potential. Neither men nor women want to work for a district that stands accused of widespread discrimination and that publicly attacks teachers who speak up to object to it. The word of lawyers paid by CB that it’s all false will not convince the community. Nor should it.

So there you have “Board Notes.”

We wish that instead of an ugly and divisive tone about these 350+ women who have honored our district with their hard work and expertise, the board could express support for the concept of equal pay for equal work and a willingness to examine the claims and determine their merit. Instead of stirring up the ire of our community about losing all the fun stuff in our schools, or, as one board member ominously suggested, bulldozing the schools themselves (presumably to offer the rubble to the teachers who may have been underpaid?), our leadership could have said something like this:

CB is an equal opportunity employer. We support all our staff members with honest pay for their good work. These are heavy accusations and our legal team is working hard to get to the bottom of the claims. We do not yet have all the facts. When we do, we will take all appropriate action. The most important action is the first: our unequivocal statement that we stand squarely behind the legal and moral obligation of equal pay for equal work.

But in these times, we do not see our leaders take responsibility. We see them cast blame and play the victim.

Commentary from the plaintiffs’ lawyer with references to the transcript:

And I must tell you [District’s counsel] Mr. Brown, I just can't understand how your client can defend this lawsuit as it is, which it has the right to do, without considering at least Ms. Cartee-Haring and Ms. Marinello having made such a request. 

(Tr. 115). 

In that vein, Judge Baylson encouraged the District to consider resolving the case:  

But more -- but what is more fundamental is that what I’m about to suggest to you, based on the testimony of this witness, that maybe instead of defending this lawsuit as a collective action, that your client -- and you don’t have to comment about this, but I urge you to discuss it with your client. Maybe you should discuss this with your client of having this review, and making adjustments where they’re appropriate, rather than fighting this lawsuit, which is obviously basically is very expensive for both parties to do.   

(Tr. 116).   

Then, after a colloquy, the Court again encouraged resolution over litigation: 

I just want to repeat what I said, and -- but the -- Central Bucks does not have to do this, but I recommend that you consult with the Board, given the testimony that took place here today as to whether you should consider some kind of negotiation to resolve this case, rather than continuing the litigation.

(Tr. 124).   

In addition to the District’s counsel, District Superintendent Lucabaugh, and then-Director of Human Resources Didio-Hauber were both present at the hearing for the Court’s statements.  And yet, it appears that the Court’s decidedly serious suggestions to consult with the Board went unheeded.  (Judge Baylson’s background is such that the District should take his statements with the utmost seriousness.  He was appointed by President Reagan in 1988 as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a position he held until 1993.  He returned to private practice as a partner with Duane Morris until 2002, when he was nominated on January 23 by President George W. Bush to a seat on the Eastern District Court. He was confirmed by the Senate on April 30, 2002, and received his commission on June 19, 2002. He assumed senior status on July 13, 2012.)

After multiple settlement overtures by Plaintiffs’ counsel, both pre-certification and post-certification, spanning several months, the District has maintained its position that it will litigate and is not interested in discussing resolution of this case. 

In fact, it appears that the full Board has never been consulted or informed about the case. Dr. Tabitha Dell’Angelo became a Board Member in 2021.  In February 2022, Dr. Dell-Angelo sent an email to the then-Director of Human Resources, Andrea Didio-Hauber, and School Board President, Dana Hunter, stating that since she had been on the Board, the Board had never been briefed on the case.  (Marinello’s lawsuit was filed on June 8, 2021).  Later, as of August 28, 2022, two (2) months after the Court issued its decision granting final certification of the case as a collective action, Dr. Dell-Angelo confirmed in emails that she still had not been briefed on the cases and that there was no executive session of the Board in which the cases were addressed. 

In a Motion to Compel the District to produce documents, which the Court granted, Plaintiffs pointed-out that the District is very wealthy with well over $1 Billion in assets. It has over 3,300 employees. It is insured in this lawsuit.  

The District filed a response (attached hereto) in which it stated in paragraph 15 that: 

any damages that might be imposed will not be paid through the sale of assets, but will be paid by insurance, if there is insurance, and by raising taxes. The School District is not a private entity. It is admitted only that there is insurance that is qualified with a reservation of rights letter. It is not expected that all damages and costs are insured.  Indeed, the alleged damages and attorneys fees asserted by Plaintiffs’ counsel in his email attached hereto as Exhibit “A” greatly exceeds any insurance that is available.  The District also denies having 3,300 employees; the actual number is approximately       2,565. 

The Exhibit A referenced in the District’s response is also attached hereto.  In it, I, as counsel for Plaintiffs, detail the District’s monetary exposure in yet another exhortation to try to settle the case and manage the financial exposure to the taxpayers of Central Bucks.  My pleas for resolution have been ignored by the current Board.  

The current Board has apparently decided to roll the dice and litigate this case where taxpayers could be responsible for $100 Million in damages, attorneys fees and costs. That's if the full Board is even aware of the details of the case. The taxpayers should know about this.

The full transcript can be found here.