White Plains CitizeNetReporter - Board Member Challenges Yanofsky Letter. Says 2001 Letter Declared "ambivalence"

WPCNR Morning Sun. By John F. Bailey. May 20, 2002, 9:15 AM EDT: A member of the White Plains Board of Education, reacting to a letter from Saul Yanofsky, Superintendent of Schools, published inSaturday's Journal News, three days before the Board of Education elections Tuesday, told WPCNR Saturday evening that Yanofsky stated in writing he was "somewhat ambivalent" about continuing as Superintendent, contrary to what Yanofsky claims in his published letter to the newspaper.

The School Board member said they and several other members of the Board of Education were shocked Saturday at Yanofsky’s Letter.

“It states on numerous occasions that he never stated he was ambivalent about continuing as Superintendent. That is simply not the case. In a letter sent to the Board on February the 20th, 2001, Dr. Yanofsky wrote, and I’m reading it to you although I must admit to being somewhat ambivalent about it, I would be willing to entertain an offer to renew my contract beyond June 30 of 2002 if the Board so wishes.”

Yanofsky Discussed His feelings of Ambivalence.

The Board Member said what happened next: “When we asked Dr. Yanofsky for some clarification, on his statement (in the February 20, 2001 letter), he proceeded to give a dictionary definition of the word ambivalence, and in our discussion, he tried to explain the conflicting feelings he had about continuing as Superintendent and about the nature of the Board-Superintendent relationship. This is very different than what he tries to portray to readers of the Journal News in today’s (Saturday) letter.”

Confirms Lewis Trippett’s comments at December Board of Education Meeting.

The Board member taking exception to Yanofsky’s letter to the paper confirms former Board Member Lewis Trippett’s public comments made at the Public Board of Education Meeting of December 11, where Trippett stated, in part,

“Under the contract, Dr. Yanofsky was required to inform the Board in writing whether or not he wished to continue as Superintendent under a new contract. The letter that Dr. Yanofsky sent to the Board hardly reflected a vigorous desire to continue. In the letter, Dr. Yanofsky stated that he was ambivalent about continuing as Superintendent but was willing to entertain an offer.”

Trippett December Statement Elaborated Yanofsky’s position.

Reading his statement December 11, Trippett said Dr. Yanofsky continued to present a puzzling position: After receiving this letter (of February 20, 2001), the Board provided Dr. Yanofsky with the opportunity to explain his letter before we began substantive discussions about whether to renew the contract. Perhaps, I thought, he misspoke, or made a poor choice of words. However, rather than back off his letter, Dr. Yanofsky re-affirmed his statement that he was ambivalent about continuing as Superintendent. When asked if he could identify any cause for his ambivalence that could be addressed, Dr. Yanofsky gave no indication of anything that could be done that would change his feeling of ambivalence.

Communications between Yanofsky and Board Were Not Going well. Board Brought in Facilitator.

The superintendent’s letter as published Saturday stated that his relationship with the board was increasingly categorized by problems in communication, trust and management style. Yanofsky said in his letter to the paper that I urged that we devote some time – perhaps with an outside facilitator – to address these problems.

The Board member WPCNR interviewed said that they did not remember actually whether it was Yanofsky or the Board that suggested a facilitator, but the Board attempted to bring in a mediator:

Questions Yanofsky’s Motives in Publishing Saturday Letter.

“We actually brought in a facilitator to assist in those areas. The Board did on two occasions. So we attempted that with him. We did bring in a facilitator to help improve the communications between the Board and Dr. Yanofsky,” The Board member said. “Beyond the counseling thing, because I’m looking to move forward here. I, quite frankly, can’t understand his reasoning behind this. I think it’s important for people to know facts, and that is a fact that on February 20, 2001, (his) letter doesn’t even state any strong willingness to continuing as superintendent, only that he’d be willing to entertain an offer.”

We asked the Board member for details on those communication breakdowns: At this stage of the game, I’m very forward-looking. Certainly there were issues around communications specifically. I don’t want to go into those details at this point, frankly, because at this point I don’t think it matters.”

February 20 Letter at Odds with Saturday Pre-Election Letter.

Asked for a copy of Yanofsky’s key February 20 “Ambivalence Letter,” the Board member said: “I don’t know that I can. I don’t believe I should at this point. Because it’s not for me to just do that. But I’m just telling you.”

“If you read his letter (Saturday) it would seem to indicate something very different from the facts I just told you, three days before the election,” the Board Member said. “I don’t think that’s his role.”

No contract length discussed. No Offers Made.

Asked if Dr. Yanofsky at anytime had stated what kind of offer would get him to stay, the Boarder Member said, “We didn’t get that far.”

WPCNR asked if Dr. Yanofsky had ever asked the Board for a one-year or two-year contract beyond June 30, 2002, and the Board Member said, “No, he did not.”

Yanofsky did not retire.

“We, of course, urged him to retire once we had determined that the district needed a superintendent who was very clear about his desire to continue in a leadership role as a superintendent, and he did not choose that path. Had I not read this letter in the newspaper today (Saturday), I would not have been upset. He seems to indicate that the comments made by Larry Geiger and Stephen Sules about his being ambivalent about being superintendent is simply not the case, he says, and it is in fact, the case..”

Spin surprises board members.

The Yanofsky letter was the talk of the Board of Education over the weekend with members buzzing about the surprise letter to the editor, the Board Member who spoke to WPCNR said,

“Three days before an election, I think it’s important the voters be given all the facts. I’m surprised he chose three days before an election to put this kind of spin on this thing. It’s this kind of thing here that I read in the paper today that I hope will make people understand the difficulty in communications we’ve had. Because it’s this kind of spin that doesn’t facilitate good communications. I am hoping we can get past this and that’s where I’m going. It’s disturbing that he would do this three days before the election with all its inaccuracies. It’s disingenuous for him to do this. At the December Board meeting he even acknowledged he was ambivalent about it.”


Create an account		The White Plains Daily Internet Newspaper...Founded 2000 A.D....


			Designed and hosted by WestchesterInternet.com