Joplin Globe guest columnist: Morale low in Joplin R-8 because teachers know they are failures

In his latest effort to play a key role in the Joplin R-8 Board of Education race, frequent Joplin Globe guest columnist Anson Burlingame blames low morale and high turnover in the school district on incompetent teachers. In a section of his latest blog, Burlingame, directing his attack at board candidates Debbie Fort and Jeff Koch, makes the case that we should elect them since he describes the school district as a "failing organization" and who in the world would want to elect board candidates who have been there for the past eight years or ones who are backing the current administration:

My simple point, one learned over a life time of professional experience is that good performance, great performance, where it counts breeds superior morale. On the other hand, failing organizations have very low morale and people bail out of such organizations all the time, seeking greener grass on the other side of the fence.

I also note from past experience that when people complain about poor morale, they usually mean their own morale. And their morale is driven by a deep sense of failing to measure up to good standards. They are simply afraid of being fired for poor performance and lay that blame on supervisors, certainly not their own obvious shortcomings in a professional venue.

Burlingame appears to be labeling the Joplin R-8 School District as a "failing organization," but lays none of the blame on the administrators.

That goes along with some of the statements made by Superintendent C.J. Huff, who initially said that teachers were leaving the district because their spouses had found jobs elsewhere and when that ridiculous statement did not hold up, he began claiming that some of the teachers could not live up to his high standards. That is an interesting statement since many of those who have left were hired since Huff became superintendent.

The Joplin Globe and those juicy page one rumors

The Joplin Globe spent a considerable amount of space in today's edition exploring whether City Councilwoman Trisha Raney lives in the city limits,

The reason this is a story, the Globe notes, is because of "rumors and Facebook posts."

I am not one of those purists who believe that rumors have no place in the news. Often they play a prime role in the things that happen and therefore, they should be reported and the truth should be discovered.

Debby Woodin, who wrote the page one story, has had a long and solid journalistic career with the Globe. What a shame that the editors are now using her to chase down rumors about Bill Scearce and Trisha Raney.

The story makes it clear that Raney lives in Joplin. The headline does not.

"Council member says she has moved," the headline reads.  If people are not familiar with this story, that headline is certainly not going to make them want to read it. For those who are familiar, it makes it look as if there is still some doubt about where Ms. Raney lives.

The subhead reads, "City Clerk: Council packets delivered to Trisha Raney at Joplin address."

A better use of the time might be doing some research to see where these stories are starting. The rumors, combined with the Globe headline (there are going to be people who will just scan the headlines and say, "Sure, she says she lives in the city" and never bother to read the story) may be enough to make a difference in the April 8 election.

The rumor has already been given credence by the Globe's regular "guest columnist" Anson Burlingame on his blog:

It seems that Trish Raney, very much in my gun sights as a candidate, lived in Joplin when she was last elected. However over the last couple of years she evidently began a relationship and later married a man living in Webb City. Supposedly she now lives in Webb City with her husband but still owns a home in Joplin.

The question of course becomes is she a legal resident of Joplin, which she must be to run for City Council. I make no attempt at a legal judgment on that point. But if someone actually lives “out of town” but still owns property in Joplin, that does not sound like a residence, at least to me. I would think one must actually live in Joplin to qualify as a candidate for city council.

When a writer has someone "very much in my gun sights," (an unfortunate, but telling remark), he had better make absolutely sure he is right. There is a reason, for instance, why I back up what I write with multiple sources and often with supporting documents.

The Globe's role in this election is being carefully scrutinized and it should be. If it wants to explore the Raney story, it needs to find out just who is planting those rumors...and it is time, long past time, that the newspaper cuts any ties to Anson Burlingame. 

Globe fails to run Burlingame's latest attack on council

Whether the editors at the Joplin Globe rejected his blast against the five City Council members or just had not published it yet and he became impatient is not clear, but Anson Burlingame's latest post debuted on his blog and not in the pages of the area's newspaper of record.

Burlingame addressed the issue at the beginning of his post:

Note: This blog was originally submitted for publication as a guest column in the Globe. Lacking such publication in the newspaper I now post it as a blog to reflect my continuing concerns about how Joplin city government is being grossly mismanaged by the Bloc of Five, council members Scearce, Rosenberg, Golden, Raney and Colbert-King.

The rest of the post features Burlingame's strongest commentary to date on the five City Council members who fired City Manager Mark Rohr:

This city is being mismanaged, grievously, by the City Council, meaning members Scearce, Rosenberg, Golden, Raney and Colbert-Kean. They are using their majority power to terminate a great leader and city employee, implication of gross misdeeds by one member of council and all sorts of other underhanded attempts to stall and even thwart the rebuilding effort ongoing in Joplin for almost now 3 years and previously approved by council.

Burlingame offers his remedy for the city's problems:

All five of those members need to be DISMISSED, run out of office, condemned by the public and all other legal forms expression of outrage for their actions. This is not democracy in action as Americans expect it. It is tyranny of the majority, a majority of good ole boys (and girls) that think they can just ride roughshod over a very angry city.

If the Joplin Globe truly vetoed Burlingame's guest column offering, it is a step in the right direction for a newspaper that has taken a hit with its coverage of city and Joplin R-8 issues.

The Globe also had to use considerable space today to counter a rumor that Burlingame helped promote that City Councilwoman Trisha Raney, one of Burlingame's Bloc of Five, is not a city resident. Though the Globe reporting totally put it to rest, I have a feeling the issue is not going to go away.

Burlingame appears to be easily swayed by those who project themselves as strong leaders. He has been wooed by master developer David Wallace (he has written about Wallace guiding him through the process) and he appears to have his views on local education spoon fed to him by C. J. Huff. 

While I would disagree with Burlingame's apparent stamp of approval of Wallace and Huff as strong leaders Rohr, from all appearances was a strong leader, particularly in the days immediately after the Joplin Tornado, but I still have a hard time believing that any group of "good ole boys" as Burlingame and others have characterized the five City Council members would have been naive enough to think that there would not be serious repercussions to firing a man widely viewed as a hero. Whatever was in the pages of the Loraine report that were not revealed to the public was enough in their view to merit his immediate dismissal. If the decision had been based on political considerations, Rohr would still be city manager because it was obvious that Rohr supporters were going to use the firing to attempt to keep council members Trisha Raney and Jack Golden from being re-elected.

When the content of those missing pages is finally revealed, we should find out more about why Tom Loraine's bill went over the $45,000 limit by so much. This has been the part of the story that has bothered me the most. An educated guess would be that once the Rohr information comes to light, whether we agree with it or not, we will have a better understanding of why the report cost so much.

Thoughts on Mark Rohr and corruption on the Joplin City Council

Mark Rohr has been one busy ex-Joplin city manager.

Let's review. In the month since the Joplin City Council fired him by a 5-4 vote he has done the following things:

-He promised to expose corruption on the City Council.

-He called the five council members who fired him liars and damned them all to hell. (He's the one who said they would get their judgment in the next life.)

-He came close to tears (that seems to be a requirement for the people the media have described as heroes of the Joplin Tornado) and shamelessly brought his children into his speech (another thing that those same heroes of the Joplin Tornado seem to like to do).

-He was hired as the new city manager of League City, Texas.

Since Mark Rohr's firing, I have watched the coverage, both online and in print and it has been, for the most part, unabashedly pro-Rohr. In its editorial pages, the Joplin Globe has done everything but tell voters that the two council members who were with the majority and fired Rohr should be voted out of office (and I am sure that editorial is coming).

In their now-independent blogs, former Globe bloggers Anson Burlingame and Geoff Caldwell have referred to the five council members as "The Feral Five," and "The Bloc of Five" with Burlingame insisting that the pages of the Loraine investigation that we have not seen have people describing Rohr as a bully. How he knows this, I have no idea, but that accusation is probably in those pages. Though it does not appear their blogs receive a great deal of traffic, both men are staples on the Globe's editorial page and Burlingame, in particular, has made it clear he intends to influence the outcome of the April elections.

The Globe has painted the five council members as the ones who are responsible for not releasing the entire report, even though the last time I looked there are nine council members, all of whom know what was included in the report...and Mark Rohr knows what is in the report, as well.

The Joplin Tri-State Business Journal also included several pages in its most recent edition that appeared slanted solidly on Rohr's side.

And those media have made Rohr's characterization of the five who fired him as being a part of a good old boy network that is intent on stopping progress from coming to Joplin, sound like a fact, instead of what is, a talking point planted by Rohr to influence coverage from people who were already inclined to be on his side.

Some questions we should consider:

-Where is the corruption that Mark Rohr promised to reveal? It was a great sound bite, but he has not produced any evidence that there is widespread corruption on the Joplin City Council. An allegedly stolen sticky note is not corruption, its elementary school name calling. Unless, of course, Rohr's corruption allegations are centered around his (successful) attempts to woo Globe Editor Carol Stark into fighting his battles with Councilman Bill Scearce.

-Why are the five council members being described as part of a good-old-boy network, when the most secretive group involved in the April city election, the Joplin Progress Committee, has received contributions from many of the major power players in the city- and none of their contributions are going to anyone who voted to fire Mark Rohr. Apparently, they don't make good old boys the way they used to.

-Why is the media acting like Wallace-Bajjali has disproven the accusations in the Loraine report? The last time I looked, all they did was provide their own version of the facts and did not disprove anything.

-Why is the media ignoring the bankruptcies, fraud accusations, and securities violations, as well as numerous lawsuits involving Wallace-Bajjali. As far as I can recall, it has never been brought up in any of the local media except for a paragraph in the Globe, which quoted Mark Rohr as saying none of it amounted to anything.

Some final thoughts

If the Joplin Globe is successful in its legal efforts to force the city to release the complete report, this is what I expect will occur:

-The report is not going to be what the Globe, Anson Burlingame, or any of the other Rohr supporters would expect. The council members who voted to fire Mark Rohr were not taken by surprise by the reaction. Rohr's influence over the Joplin Globe is well known. Two council members, Trisha Raney and Jack Golden, voted to fire Rohr, knowing full well that it could cost them their council seats. That is not the way good old boys usually operate.

-Bullying may have been a factor in Rohr's dismissal, but it was not the deciding factor. I would say there were things that occurred that the five council members saw as Rohr abusing his office. We probably will wonder why the other four did not join them in their vote. The allegations could have prevented Rohr from landing the League City position and could have landed the city in a lawsuit. When Rohr left Piqua, Ohio, he successfully sued someone who accused him of wrongdoing. I reported the following in the June 3, 2007, Turner Report:

The Family Abuse Shelter of Miami County, Ohio, is $3,000 richer, thanks to a settlement of a libel suit brought by Joplin City Manager Mark Rohr against a Piqua, Ohio, businessman who Rohr says defamed him while Rohr was Piqua's city manager.

According to an article in the March 29 Dayton Daily News, Rohr had initially won his lawsuit against Gustin, but the jury voted not to award him any money. A retrial was ordered, but will not be held thanks to the settlement.

Rohr sued Charles "Mo" Gustin after Gustin claimed police cruisers had been to Rohr's house three or four times to check out domestic abuse complaints;

Rohr said his lawyer, Grant Kerber of Troy, suggested the donation. Rohr liked the idea.

"My sole objective was to send a message that you can't go around saying untrue things about someone without repercussions." Rohr said.

Rohr said he thinks he made his point.

Joplin Globe "guest columnist" continues to push idea that Joplin School Board candidates are Turner puppets

While it would probably be best to leave the ramblings of Joplin Globe "guest columnist" Anson Burlingame on his blog where they would not be seen by many, I once again am going to drive some traffic his way.

The main reason is because Burlingame, as he did throughout my problems last year with C. J. Huff and the Joplin R-8 Administration, is passing along a collection of mistruths, truths twisted beyond recognition, and outright fabrications, and then trying to impress his readers by pointing out what a learned man he is.

It would be better off to leave his personal blog (the one that used to be a Joplin Globe blog before those were canceled) alone, except that in this case, he is making it obvious that he plans to continue to push the idea C. J. Huff is trying to get across- that anyone who is not an R-8 Board of Education incumbent or who has not been selected by the powers that be to join that group- is a puppet and I am the one who is pulling the strings.

I am not concerned about his personal blog. Ten readers do not sway an election. Unfortunately, the Joplin Globe provides Burlingame with unfettered access to its opinion pages, including those in the more widely read Sunday edition, and Burlingame indicates he intends to take an active role in seeing to it that the "right" people are the ones who are elected in April.

In his latest blog post, he writes the following:

The real crux of the issue for local voters deciding on who should be appointed to our local BOE is clearly stated in that column. In case you missed it, it was deciding whether we wanted a “hands on” BOE that would set clear policies to guide our public education in Joplin, or instead have “politicians” wanting to remain in office at any cost and let people like Randy Turner and his followers reign supreme in our classrooms. I will support the former type of candidate (no names yet) and reject out of hand those that adhere to Turner’s approach to public education.

At another point he attempts to hammer home that thought:

I don’t know Randy Turner personally and bear him no personal animus. But I have read with interest his public writing on matters related to public education and listened intently to the entire 10 hour hearing that resulted in his termination as a Joplin teacher. He refers in his blog to his status as a “retired teacher” now. I disagree. He was flat out fired as a teacher in Joplin, no retirement mentioned. He may receive a pension but he sure will not earn a salary any longer in Joplin public schools. And if he wants to relitigate that matter, he himself should run for the BOE, not put “front men” in such positions, at least in my view.

Joplin Globe columnist responds to Turner Report post

In a Turner Report post earlier this week, I uncharacterisically referred to frequent Joplin Globe "guest columnist" Anson Burlingame an an "idiot" after reading one of his columns in which he ignored every issue in the Joplin R-8 Board of Education race and said the whole race comes down to whether voters agreed with how the administration and the board handled my case. I later apologized for referring to Burlingame as an idiot, saying that readers could examine what he has written and make that determination for themselves. Burlingame responded to that post, so in all fairness, in addition to leaving his response there, I am also going to give him equal time. I might add that, once again, Burlingame is sticking with his contention that the whole school board race is about Randy Turner.)

This is from Anson Burlingame, the idiot.

First I take no real offense at the title of your blog, Randy. I have been called far worse on other blogs. And for sure I never expect full agreement with anything that I write publicly. So fire away whenever you feel compelled to do so.

The real crux of the issue in the upcoming BOE election is stated rather clearly in my column. Do we want a "hands on" BOE or one that will let individuals do as they please in our classrooms, and in your case, outside of them as well.

Much is being said, in you case months ago and now with the Kansas Board of Regents, about freedom of speech in academia. I support it completely, for sure. You or anyone else in such positions, positions of public trust, paid for with public dollars. have all the right in the world to speak you minds, publicly.

But what you say must be held accountable by voters, the only real way that citizens can control such speech. If I disagree with you I can do nothing but write about such disagreement. But elected officials can do more and should, in my view.

You violate numberous BOE policies and such was "proven" in a legal proceeding to the satisfaction of 7 elected officials. Good for them in my view. We need more like them for sure to state clearly the policies that should guide education and then enforce those policies with what is missing in many classrooms, real RIGOR.

About 4 of the 8 candidates now having filed for election to the BOE are right out of your "camp". Good for them to make the effort to turn Joplin education into a "Turner program" that will perpetuate the same issues in public education so well pointed out over a decade ago in the Bell Curve.

Then read Ripley's new book The Smartest Kids in the World. You and your type of teachers would not last a minute in a system such as Finland sustains. Read the book to see why.

THAT is what this upcoming BOE election is all about and THAT is what I will try hard to promote for candidates running for that office.

But don't expect any long harangues in comments on this blog. We both know full well what the other believes in terms of how to improve education and we both disagree with great strenght, with each other.

So be it. Let the voters now decide just who is the "idiot"

Your later appology is accepted by the way.

Anson Burlingame

Things I'm Thinking About, January 1

-Viewing for New Joplin Schools- I read where the viewing for the new East Middle School, Soaring Heights Elementary School, and Irving Elementary School is set for Sunday, January 12. Can anyone tell me when the visitation and services will be held.

-An Apology to Anson Burlingame- Earlier this evening, I called Anson Burlingame an idiot. I should have simply printed what he wrote and let Turner Report readers come to that decision for themselves. Same result, but I should have handled it better.

 -It's Not the Same- I stopped by Books-A-Million this afternoon and, as usual, it made me miss Hastings. It has been nearly two years since Hastings closed, and while I am glad Books-A-Million is still in Joplin (even though it has never carried any of my books) and I enjoy visiting Vintage Stock on the Mall (which does carry them), it's just not the same not having Hastings in Joplin any more. Thankfully, we do still have some locally-owned book stores in Joplin, which is the subject of the next paragraph.

-Update on My Books- Speaking of my books, a reminder that Let Teachers Teach is now available at Always Buying Books and Changing Hands Book Shoppe in Joplin for $10. For those who have asked if I am going to have a book version of The Devil's on Facebook, in addition to the e-book, which is available now on Amazon Kindle, the paperback will be available in July or August. And thanks for asking.

-2014 Plans for the Turner Report and Inside Joplin- I plan on writing a post tomorrow detailing what I plan to do in 2014 with the Turner Report, Inside Joplin, and my other blogs.

Anson Burlingame is an idiot; the Joplin School Board race is not about me

I don't make a habit of calling people idiots, even when their behavior would certainly seem to indicate the label applies.

That being said, Anson Burlingame is an idiot.

One sign of how far the Joplin Globe has fallen over the past few years has been its eagerness to make this man out to be some sort of wise thinker whose columns should appear in the newspaper's pages. The Globe tried a failed experiment a few years back of setting up certain people in the area as bloggers. At first glance, it seemed like the blogs were a success; they were filled with reader comments.

Unfortunately for the Globe, most of the comments were from their own bloggers, bickering with each other.

How much they were paying these people for their wisdom I have no idea, but the experiment came to a screeching halt a couple of years ago.

Since then, the Globe has propped up the two "conservative" bloggers, Burlingame and Geoff Caldwell, by providing them with regular space on the editorial pages as "guest columnists." Both of them were featured on today's opinion page.

Burlingame's column shows just how little the man knows about what is going on in Joplin.

Things I'm Thinking About, Sunday, December 29

A few short thoughts for today. Feel free to respond to them.

-During the 2014 Missouri legislative session, we are going to see the spectacle of leading Republican legislators fighting to save our schools from Common Core Standards- just to turn them over to Rex Sinquefield. We will see a battle to let our teachers teach a curriculum devised by our local schools, only to then hear legislators talk about how we need to get rid of bad teachers by eliminating tenure.

-Tomorrow I will start rerunning a few of the Turner Report posts about people who died during 2013, including some as famous as Stan Musial and others not so famous, but who made a difference.

-I will also conclude my review of the year 2013. I have been concentrating on stories that were featured on this blog either first or which appeared exclusively here.

-At some point, I plan to write about the situation in Kansas where the Board of Regents is trying to control what college and university professors can write in social media. The Joplin Globe had a column and a letter to the editor in its Forum section today. Former Globe investigative reporter Max McCoy who now works at a university notes the error of what the Regents' approach since public bodies cannot make rules restricting First Amendment rights at public institutions. Seeing McCoy's byline was a pleasant surprise. He is a reminder of a time when the Globe actually did investigative reporting. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor was printed from the insufferable and intellectually challenged Anson Burlingame, who, of course, supported what the Regents did, because in his beliefs, bosses are always right. The frequency with which Burlingame's nonsense appears in the Globe is a symbol of what the newspaper has become.

-The Turner Report has made another change in its appearance- one that readers have been requesting for a long time. The home page will no longer feature long posts, but will do what other blogs do and have a link where you can go to the rest of the story. It should make the home page easier to navigate. I would have done it sooner, but I just figured out how to do it today.

-
-