Monday, June 09, 2008

Zandberg disputes 'disgruntled' label.

Mark Zandberg says he's "disappointed," not "disgruntled."

"Disappointed at the way things turned out," said the former Planning and Property Management Specialist. "A lot of us hoped things would turn out differently."

These days, Nick Brossoit is making the rounds to refute claims made by the blog.

In a recent appearance at an elementary school, Brossoit claimed the blog was full of lies, that the Auditor found nothing to support claims made on the blog, that Mark Zandberg is a disgruntled former employee and that the matter is heading to court.

Let's address Brossoit's claims.

1. The blog is full of lies.

It would seem totally appropriate for Brossoit to explain to our community which claims are true and which are false. The blog would certainly post any rebuttal offered by Brossoit. The last explanation was not only entirely laughable but resulted in the resignation of the most senior member of the school board, Dr. Bruce Williams. Please share with us how the claims made on the blog are false and maybe we might start believing you.

2. The Auditor found nothing to support the claims made by the blog.

Here is an email sent on Friday, May 30 at 10:59 AM (three days after the posted audit reports)

Sorry for the delayed response. The audit report that was published is one portion of the audit, but we have not completed the entire audit at this time. We are currently working on wrapping up the audit, including responding to the concerns you forwarded to us. If you would like to call me to discuss the audit prior to receiving that correspondence, please give me a call at 425-257-XXXX.

Thank you,

Christopher J. Kapek, CPA

The final audit report has not yet been completed. Brossoit is aware that the final report hasn't been completed and yet appears to be making a claim unsupported by facts. Some would call that a lie. Technically, the Auditor has not yet responded to the claims made by the blog so it could be argued that the Auditor "found nothing" so far.

3. Mark Zandberg is a disgruntled former employee.

Disgruntled is a loaded term used by management to pigeonhole opposition. Zandberg lives in the Edmonds School District and was a loyal and frequently-praised employee for more than six years. He is clearly motivated by doing what is right - despite a lack of support from management.

Parents do not oppose the District for fear of what could happen to their children. Employees do not speak up for fear of what could happen to their jobs. Zandberg doesn't have children and no longer works for the District. A few minutes in his company and the distinction between disgruntled and disappointed becomes crystal clear.

4. The matter [regarding the blog] is heading to court.

The basis for legal action is wrongful termination.

Editor: Thank you to another guest contributor.


Anonymous said...

Nick does not even know how to handle his own managers behavior problems. Look at what is going on right under his nose. If you clowns cared at all, you would show up to work on occasion. That would be the first sign of life.

Anonymous said...

Why is the Nickster even mentioning the Blog while at a school? What was the context of the conversation? If I was him I would pretend that I had never even heard of the Blog. It must be getting under his skin. Yippee!

Anonymous said...

What I heard was that it was a response to a question by a staff member about how to handle the negative impact of the blog.

Anonymous said...

Nick isn't "refuting" claims made by the blog. He is dismissing them without explanation. There is a huge difference.

Nick wants us to take his word for it, without evidence, and pretend like the blog doesn't exist.

As far as responding to claims made by the blog, that will never happen. The sticky goo of mounting a Bruce Williams defense actually made matters much worse.

You have him profoundly outwitted.

Anonymous said...

Dear Nick:

Beware. Name calling is the first step down the road to a very bad end. It is a method of trying to demonize an "enemy" or "opponent." It indicates that you have no "facts" but merely "opinions" and are trying to switch the one for the other. It also indicates that you are trying to play one group of people off against another group. Don't go there.

The next step is scapegoating where the offending person or group is blamed for all of the problems of the bullying group. Again, this is an emotional appeal, not based on fact but rather relies on falsehoods and innuendo to create a smokescreen to deflect attention from your own mismanagement. If there IS something in the auditor's report that is uncomplimentary to the District, don't even think about blaming it on Mark. It won't stick.

After that comes encoding discriminatory behaviors into practices, rules, regulations, and laws. Example: yellow Star of David arm bands, Krystallnacht, etc. Hyberbole? Think again.

I suppose that you might also put Chris and I into your "disgruntled" category. Mr. Limon already started the demonization of us last year when he named us as a "threat" to staff and students at MMS and signed out the "no trespass" order against us. (BTW it expired on June 5. Don't worry; it's not worth the $40 in gas.)

My dictionary defines "disgruntle" as "to make discontented or cross." This indicates that the action of the verb is directed AT A VICTIM to make them "discontented or cross." Therefore, to be "disgruntled" means that an action has been taken TOWARD you to make you "cross." By definition, it does not follow that people become "disgruntled" for no reason; something has been done TO them. If you are saying that Mark or Chris or I or anyone else currently or formerly employed by the District are "disgruntled," you are ADMITTING that something has happened to us that would make us "discontented." You are ADMITTING culpability somewhere in the District that something was done TO us. Who did that, Nick? Check with Ken. Check with Marla.

The more I investigate this type of school management behavior, the more "disappointed" I am that it has become "standard operating procedure" in Edmonds and is so endemic to many schools across the nation. I am "disappointed" that so many administrators have so few management skills that they have to resort to these crude management methods. I have become "disappointed" that our legislators show little interest in crafting legislation to strenghten our current weak bullying laws.

The children deserve better management techniques from administration than what you are showing here. If the current administrators think that name-calling and scapegoating are appropriate tools of supervision, they need to "go somewhere else."

Remember, "it's what's best for the kids." Is that the type of behavior you want modeled to the children of the District?

Anonymous said...

C'mon Nick, MAN UP on all the crap in the district. You need to clean up the institution. It IS your responsibility.