Season 2, episode 12. Dialogue across differences: A conversation with Scott Esserman

Transcript

Alan Gottlieb 0:08

​Hi everybody, and welcome back to the Board Hawk podcast. We are really happy today to have a guest on that. You might be surprised to see that we have on, and that is former school board member Scott Esserman. I'm saying you might be surprised because I've written very critically about Scott on a number of occasions. So he, I'm grateful to him for being willing to come on and talk about it. I do wanna say that I felt like when I look back over the things I'd written over the last few years, there were a couple of times where I think I might've stepped over the line in the way I wrote about Scott and gotten a little more personal or nasty in my language than I needed to be. So for that, I just, Scott and I met in person a couple of weeks ago. I apologized to him for those occasions then, and I'm doing that publicly now. I think we can disagree. Vigorously without devolving into anything more than that. Scott. Was big enough to come on the podcast despite all of that, and I think our disagreements are small compared to our agreements in on overall issues. I, I said to him, when you look at what's going on in the world in this country right now, the things we disagree on may be significant and important, but like 98% of stuff we're gonna be totally aligned on. So Scott, thank you very much for coming on and really look forward to this conversation.

Scott Esserman 1:19

Yeah. You're welcome and appreciated your approach to that and your willingness to accept responsibility and to start to make amends for for things that were likely unfair.

Alan Gottlieb 1:33

By the way, just as a very brief introduction before the first question, I just, for those of you who might not know, Scott was on the school board from 2021 to 2025 and did not get reelected, or he was mo he moved from at large to district two.

Scott Esserman 1:47

3

Alan Gottlieb 1:47

3, 3, 3. Sorry, I never remembered these numbers. And did not get reelected in last November. So he is no longer on the school board, but he was a very. Central figure on the board for four years. So that's why we wanted to have him on. So Scott, I just wanted to like, dive in first with here here's some stuff we disagreed on and would love to hear your point of view. The first one is that last year the board extended superintendent Alex Murrow's contract and made it harder to remove him or future superintendents. And this was done before any comprehensive evaluation of his performance had been conducted. And so I'm interested in why you supported and in some ways even led that effort.

Scott Esserman 2:24

So I would I disagree with the premise that, that it was before before any comprehensive evaluation had taken place. He is evaluated annually. He had been evaluated annually, we're in process of that evaluation, and actually completed that evaluation before the vote. So we may disagree on what a comprehensive evaluation was but he was regularly evaluated. Is one and two is, the, that as we know and has been discussed at length the board has one employee and that employee is the superintendent. And it is the board's responsibility to evaluate that superintendent with input from a variety of sources. And also according to, what the board prior to me put in place re regarding policy governance. And so there were a couple of things. One is we can certainly get into the discussion of of Dr. Murrow's job performance and critiques thereof. I think I think that. That you and I would agree that he does some things well and some things poorly and that he is during the course of his tenure, done some things well and some things poorly. And what I have to look at as, an employer and as one of seven people who is responsible for evaluating him is is to evaluate his overall performance and determine whether or not that Is worthy of an extension. I took a lot of things into account, both in the first extension that I voted on a couple of months after I got on the board, maybe a month after I got on the board. And this extension, which are they, don't put the district in any sort of fiscally binding scenario. So all that the district can potentially owe him if he is removed for cause is the remainder of that year's contract. So it doesn't matter if he's got a year remaining on his contract or two years, or five years or 12 years. 12 years isn't gonna happen. But that doesn't matter what he has remaining on his contract. All that the district is responsible for is that remainder of the year on the contract, if he's terminated with cause he's terminated without, cause that's a different story. And so in my I certainly voted for that for that extension because I felt strongly that he was doing a good job and leading the district in, in substantially positive ways.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 5:02

Thanks. Okay. So much, Scott and, I have two follow ups to that. The first is you had mentioned if he's let go with, cause there's one. Path that happens for paying out the rest of his contract if he's fired without, cause obviously that's a different outcome. And I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't looked at it in quite a while. It's a, full year of his salary. Is that right?

Scott Esserman 5:28

For the without, cause I think he, he may be I think it ends up in the courts. Where he can claim the remainder of the contract and that could be settled.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 5:39

Oh yeah. I think that's I think you're right. It was something like that. So

Scott Esserman 5:43

With without cause becomes a little bit more of a sticky wicket.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 5:46

And so I guess the, my question's about intent. Was the my critique. And Scott, you and I were going to battle on this one in public on this. And so again, appreciate, really appreciate you coming on when we've disagreed so ly on this issue in particular my, my critique at the time and I think it's, still my critique is the, intent is if a new school board comes in, you're like putting them in a position where it's really hard for them to get outta a contract. The art, I would love to hear your counter argument to that. And I think there, there's probably very valid counter arguments to that because you don't wanna politicize this too much, but where I really had a hard time with that was the super majority component. So for those who don't know the amendment to the contract and basically said that there needs to be a super majority to remove the superintendent, whereas before it was just a simple majority. So I'm curious to hear a little bit more about that and that critique that myself and others leveled against the board.

Scott Esserman 6:52

Sure. So one is, I would say that the key element here is the with cause. That, that if a new board was elected and felt like they had cause to terminate him, that they would, they could do nothing in an extension prevents a new board from terminating him with cause. And at that point, only owing him the remainder of that year of the. Depending on when they terminate him. And that to me is a really critical element because then we're talking about is a new board interested in terminating him without cause? Because if they're interested in terminating him without, cause I think A-A-C-E-O of a$1.5 billion organization with 15,000 employees and 88,000 plus. Kids and 50,000 families. I think it's reasonable to provide that person with some sense of security that at the whims of the change of a board, that nobody can just get rid of him without cause. I think that that's, how I looked at it, and that's how I continue to look at it. And so the second part of that becomes the super majority, which is if you look, it takes a super majority to hire a superintendent. You can't hire a superintendent on a four three vote. And so to me, just in a vacuum if our policy is we're gonna hire a person. A super majority then it seems rational to me that the standard for removing that person would also be a super majority. And to make it look I have paid little attention. To what's gone on in terms of the board since I got off the board as a healthy break as a need to, get some of the toxins out of my life and some of the toxins outta my system. I haven't paid a lot of attention, but I paid enough attention to know that that this board may not be I know that our board was occasionally accused of being dysfunctional. Never

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 9:12

Scott, never

Scott Esserman 9:12

ne never and never by anybody on this podcast. Certainly.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 9:16

No, certainly

Scott Esserman 9:16

never. But I think it's safe to say that this board has not elevated the level of functionality above where we were and, knowing that it, there are things that should take. An additional vote to get to that aren't a simple majority. And I, I felt that this was that this was a way of providing security. When, I, also on a less technical level, I think there's a key element here, which is. And I'm not saying the two of you guys can own that or not as you may see fit but there are plenty of people in the Denver community, some of those voices who agreed with you, Alexis, who haven't given Dr. Morero a shot since he arrived. Plenty of people in community who said he wasn't Latino enough who said he wasn't western enough. That we had a mayor and former mayor who wrote an article that the board should redo the process instead of hiring him. We have a, former mayor who parades around town and goes around town sharing extensively that he doesn't believe Marrero should have ever been hired. And. A tremendous amount of that. I'm, not gonna get into whether or not that has a racial component. If you wanna delve into that, we certainly can. But, publicly, and I'm not, again, I'm not saying you. He, has not always been treated. In a way that befits his station, his position or the work he's actually done, or the ways in which he's actually shown up. People are eager to jump on claims against him. And not knowing whether or not I was gonna be reelected, I felt like I, I owed to my sole employee a sense of security. And we don't talk about the fact and, it and I think it's largely irrelevant for you, but we don't talk about the fact that we pulled the ridiculous bonus that Scott Baldman had initiated in there. There was no increase in pay in this extension. It was simply a matter. Providing some level of security that would require a, super majority to terminate him with cause

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 12:07

And, sorry,

Scott Esserman 12:08

that was too lengthy, but

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 12:09

No, That was really helpful and, I think a lot of that was really fair. And I do absolutely and I wanna respond to some of this, but before I, I do correct me if I'm wrong or not,'cause I want to give Dr. Marrero the benefit of the doubt on some of this. My understanding from hearing conversations on the school board, I think maybe you brought this up at the time was it was actually Dr. Marrero that suggested getting rid of the bonus as part of the contract. Is that correct?

Scott Esserman 12:37

I,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 12:38

or maybe a combo.

Scott Esserman 12:40

He. He and I and he and other board members he hated the bonus.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 12:46

Especially

Scott Esserman 12:46

the

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 12:46

optics and Yeah.

Scott Esserman 12:48

The the optics, but the optics were based on how people wanted to weaponize that. Got it. And I don't think that the bonus was structured well,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 12:58

right?

Scott Esserman 12:59

It wasn't written well I can certainly write but he was never comfortable with it. Yeah. And I was ready to get rid of the bonus a year earlier.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 13:11

That's super helpful. Thank you.

Scott Esserman 13:13

And we had struggled to do that.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 13:15

Thank you. And I I know we have other things I wanna talk about, but I actually find this really fascinating. So I wanna just respond a little bit to what you were saying, and then I think Alan has a follow up as well. Yeah, so for those who don't remember, just as a little bit of a background at the time, this was last April, May-ish timeframe, I, along with a couple of other members of the Latino community, had organized a letter that was sent to the board and we also shared it with the media, essentially asking the board to, pause on the contract extension and some of the reasons we gave was what we had discussed earlier. We disagreed that there was a, an evaluation. Obviously Scott and I disagree on what a comprehensive evaluation is and that's okay. I actually agree with you, Scott, about the racialized component of some of this. I think that not, and I will say not just for Dr. Marra, but also for Susanna Cordova. Now, Dr. Cordova in her role as well, I think she also experienced some level of, critique from community members, both. Both because of her ethnicity, but also because of her gender as well, having been the first woman to serve in, in many years in that role. And absolutely. And so I think what, I was really frustrated about when the superintendent came in, I was a part of something at the time and I think it still exists, is the Latino Education Coalition. And it was what I appreciated about the coalition at the time was that it was actually made up of. Pretty diverse ideological individuals. So you had folks from the Congress of Hispanic educators. You had folks who were part of the ending the school to prison pipeline. You had folks who were part of the more traditional ed reform movement. You had folks who had been D Ds, DCTA teachers. One of the things I was really disappointed in, being part of that group was when he was hired the critique, and you mentioned it about what type of Latino he was. He's not Chicano, he's not from the west, he's not from Colorado. He's he's this brook or Brooklyn. He's this New York guy. And at the time, the Bronx He would not like you saying Brooklyn is a big Yankee fan. Sorry. Sorry. I, yeah, my bad.

Scott Esserman 15:29

Yeah, Brooke.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 15:30

Apologies.

Scott Esserman 15:30

That's a huge,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 15:31

I caught myself. I just said New York'cause I couldn't remember where he was from. New York keep it safe. And I don't want any New Yorkers coming for me. And and I thought that was just really unfair. And so I didn't put a lot of stock into that criticism, but I think that was something that was, that the LEC did. And I think since then actually it's a very different makeup of the group now. And now that group is, at my understanding very supportive of the superintendent. And so he won a lot of people over. And so I've always taken issue with. Members of my own community, criticizing members of our own ethnic and cultural backgrounds based on if they are down enough. If they're whatever enough. And we experience it all the time. Whether it's you don't speak Spanish so you're not fully whatever, you don't you're not brown enough as as somebody who's very light skinned. And I think yeah,

Scott Esserman 16:25

it's a pick your litmus test,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 16:27

right? Precisely. And I see that with Dr. Marrero and so for me. It was I was really intentional when we drafted that letter to not make it about him, his character. It was, and we actually gave him credit for a lot of the inputs that we were seeing. There were a lot of good inputs that we were waiting for the outputs and outcomes on. And yeah I guess my, my getting off my soapbox for a second. I agree with you on the racial component that often comes with this. I still disagree on like the decision and the why. But I do think and, I think this dialogue is a perfect example of we need to start having more nuanced conversations and call out when we see behavior that is like unacceptable for a city like Denver when we claim to care about equity claim to care about social justice and these things, and we're. Eating each other alive, especially within our own community. So all that to say thank you for your comment, feel free. We, I'm happy to dive into the racial component of this but I do agree on, some of that as well.

Scott Esserman 17:39

I think we likely agree more than not on the racial component. And, on the, element there. And like, I said, I don't hold you responsible for that.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 17:48

Yeah.

Scott Esserman 17:48

Thank

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 17:48

you.

Scott Esserman 17:50

And we disagree on the, whether or not. That's somehow hand tying a new board,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 17:58

right?

Scott Esserman 17:59

I don't happen to believe that it is. And that, look I think we have to be honest about about adult rumors and agendas as well, right? So I like to think that the focus of my work on the board and the focus of my work and my career has been on students. And and one critique I frequently have of the fact that we're having discussions about the extension of Dr. Marrow's contract is the level of impact that has on kids. Right? And and what ends up happening to, to, to both of your points when we disagree and when we get into these conversations is that we end up having conversations about adult issues that, that, that really ha have a limited impact on a student's day-to-day life in a building. And obviously these are decisions we have to make as a board and these are decisions that community's gonna have input on. And I've always had those conversations and I haven't ended those conversations. That's one of the reasons that I'm here. And I think it's important that if we're having this conversation that, that part of that is. If Dr. Murray continues, does that have a negative impact on kids? Does that have a positive impact on kids? Does that have a neutral impact on kids? Do what's the impact of a change in leadership at a district? And we can we could do entire podcasts on that alone. Versus some consistency in terms of what's going on. So

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 19:48

Would you agree though that the, superin, the person that's in the superintendency makes a huge difference on, on what's happening in the classroom and how students are doing?

Scott Esserman 20:01

I think they have a huge impact on, how students are doing. I think they have a, relatively limited impact of what goes on in an individual classroom on a day-to-day basis. They're, determining larger global issues in terms of what curriculum might look like. But look, it took me the better part of a year to visit every school in the district. To be in every building in the district, and. And I was in some classrooms, but certainly not all of them. And certainly when I go into a building the school wants to highlight what's going well. But the degree to which the superintendents touch or anybody really at the central office impacts what goes on day to day in the classroom. I think, is much more about the school leadership and the teachers in that kid's classroom. And I, think that both as a board member and as a parent, right? I don't think my kids are regularly impacted by the superintendent per se. So

Alan Gottlieb 21:10

Scott, I I think we have a list of other questions we want to get into, but I think, as you said, the superintendent's, the board's sole employees. So I think this is a really important topic and we can stick with it for a while. Sure. I'd like to hear, because I've been very critical in writing of Superintendent Marrero and for a number of reasons. So I'd really like you to explain for our listeners. What it is you think he's been doing that's been very effective and why you thought he was deserving of an extension. And then also you mentioned early on that there's some things he hasn't done well. What, from your perspective, has he not done well?

Scott Esserman 21:45

I think that's a, those are fair questions, right? I think that he has that, that, let's talk first about what I think he's doing exceptionally well. Right, which is, he is the district and obviously there's a lot to talk about here but during my time on the board, during Dr. Murrow's time as superintendent. We've had significant increases in academic success and in some ways along some of those equity issues that are important, I think, to all of us. And certainly I know Alexis and I have talked about that at length. And there is both. I don't wanna say this. There, there is both valid critique of that growth and academic improvement. And then there is some some I would say manipulation of data in a way to show something different by folks who have a certain political bent or or, otherwise but I would say that the increased academic performance, that recovery from COVID, that graduation rates, right? We can go down the list of the ways in which the district has improved under his watch and some of the stability he's brought there. But, there has been right. Improved academic performance, number one. Number two, as board treasurer. But also just as a, board member. The finances of the district are in maybe the best shape they've ever been in. Organizations. Let's take it a different direction. Moody's doesn't give out AAA ratings for school districts very often. And DPS has received that in the last two years consecutively. We're we spend our dollars we spend our dollars in a way that focus'em on the classrooms, on the kids and I have to give Dr. Murrow credit for that. In addition to some of the academic stuff the work he is done on the, on, on the community hubs has been exceptional is his work and his advocacy around our immigrant student populations and around school safety have been significant. And impressive. I think that one of the things that, that people. Obviously most people don't get interacted with him regularly. Those I think are. Some of the highlights he has. Elevated Denver Public School's profile nationally. When I was attending conferences and professional developments, the number of people who lobbed him who, who think incredibly highly of him, he's been able to attract some, really excellent people nationally work in the district. He's it's something that, that people here don't see. But, it's real. In terms of, critiques?'cause I wanna be fair in terms of answering your question I think that he that he has occasionally had some blind spots and some loyalty to folks working for him who may not be the best people. And that, That that if loyalty is a flaw, he has demonstrated that from time to time. I would say that he certainly operates with a level of of, ego that some people are uncomfortable with. Although I'm not sure how you. Successfully navigate system the size of DPS as the effectively the CEO of that system without rubbing some people the wrong way. But I found him to be open to criticism, to be engaging in conversation. And one of the things that, again, I don't think a lot of people see that, I got to see as his employer was, his desire and his ability to continue learning and improving both as a leader but also extending that to the district as a whole. I, I don't have a tremendous number of critiques. But I would say that those are the highlights of them.

Alan Gottlieb 26:55

Okay, thanks. I would just say that this is one place where I think we disagree fairly strenuously, and it's just disagreement and that's fine. One, one is that I I don't see the ac Yes, the graduation rates have gone up, but a graduation rates and a vacuum are meaningless. And it would be good to know like what actually happens to kids after they graduate from DPS and what their success rate is and whatever endeavor they choose, whether it's two year college, four year college apprenticeship going into the workforce. Going into the trades, whatever it is. And I just don't see the evidence. I see a lot of spin of data that, to me is a little bit dishonest. And I've written about that, so I don't need to reiterate my points, but I'm just gonna push back a little on that. I'd also like just to hear you elaborate a little more about on the safety issue, because I know out in the community there's certainly a lot of voices that feel like the safety situation in DPS hasn't really improved and that it's still pretty tenuous. So I'd love to hear you say where you think that, he's made big strides in that regard.

Scott Esserman 27:49

Yeah. So, before we get to the safety, I would just say I'm, all about making sure that when we talk about graduation rates that's meaty and that there's no spin there. But I would also say that during Tom's time. There was a lot of focus and Alexis, I think you may have worked on some of this there was a lot of focus on improving graduation rates. That that was a central focus of his academic work. And and I may be wrong, but I don't recall hearing the same critiques at that time. And I'm not saying you, Alan in particular because you're certainly not the only one. To share that or elevate that, or express that. But I think it, it also falls into we do, it's, as we know, it's a little bit difficult to drag some of the post-graduation data because once they're not our students anymore it's up to either what they self-report or what parents report or what we can get from, other institutions. So there's some challenges there. And I'm like, I'm open. I'm totally open to that, dialogue. And I think that there are, there that, there's other data that shows that as, that shows the academic improvements that, that suggests. It's not just graduation rates but the work done on graduation has been really impressive and has extended across some of the traditional, racial issues there. So just wanted to throw that out.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 29:39

Before, before we go to the safety thing can we actually go in a little bit in this direction and then I think we can ask about like the SROs and safety, Alan, is that okay?

Alan Gottlieb 29:48

Yeah.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 29:49

Okay. Scott it's a good point and Dr. Marrero, after I made a public comment I don't remember at this point, if it was last year, the year before, about, something or other superintendent came up to me afterwards and basically said like, where was this critique when, Tom was in office? So all that to say it's come up and that critique has come up before. So appreciate you naming it. Going down that path of, a discussion for a second graduation rates is certainly one way. And I, think the other thing that was celebrated and I will absolutely credit like the NAP scores. That we've seen are something to celebrate, right? I think where, yeah, where I have a critique and Alan disagrees where my critique starts though, and you guys can't see Alan is shaking. I said when I said that. So maybe the first time ever, like Scott and I agree on something and Alan disagrees, but where the critique then starts is when you start disaggregating the data and where and one of the questions I wanted to ask you was around standardized testing, but I'm gonna actually make it more broad. Scott, after having seen you on the board for four years and after having to get to know you in the community, at community events and have had a couple conversations with you I really applaud your commitment to equity and I know it's something that you and I both share. I think where we start to differ is how we measure it, how we are thinking about the ways that we're measuring outputs and outcomes of those, of equity for specifically like black, brown, and indigenous students. One of my critiques is around Nate, that we didn't see the level of improvement in growth both for Nate, but also the SPF, the state SPF for students of color. And the other piece that, that I wanted to touch on, you feel free to respond to that, but also I know you've been highly critical of standardized testing, for example, and I'll be one of the first to say, I don't think standardized testing are. Without bias are, the perfect solution. And I think actually with AI there's a lot more we can do around differentiated instruction and tracking students' learning progress over time. But until we're able to scale that, this to me is the best we have to be able to measure students' progress in, in a standardized way. So all that being said I'm curious to hear from you. How do you respond to those critiques that yes, there might be things that on the surface seem great, but when we dig down deeper, the equity piece, we're actually creating larger equity gaps.

Scott Esserman 32:34

So we def one, we, I'm gonna start at the end there. We, we definitely aren't creating larger equity gaps, right? We may not be, making the same progress on those equity gaps that you or I would like to see. Or I think that any of us would like to see. But I don't think it's been I, know it's not about thinking, that data doesn't show that we've had that, that we've gone backwards on, on those gaps. So that's one. Two is I think that part of what's really important in this conversation and I, recognize the, I'm not gonna call'em benefits, I'm gonna call it the need at times for standardized testing. The, issue that I have is the purposes that it ends up being used for, right? And so. Dr. Marrero and I, as a board member, aren't afraid of looking at where our data is lacking and feel the urgency to ensure that we're acting on that. And what standardized testing shows us is that this is not a unique to DPS problem.

Alan Gottlieb 34:02

Absolutely not

Scott Esserman 34:03

right? that that we're looking at something on a national scope that we're looking at those things. And that doesn't excuse DS whatsoever. I'm not saying that. No,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 34:13

but I think you're right. I think you're right.

Scott Esserman 34:15

But contextually, far too often the people, whether it's the union or whether it's folks like Denver families who wanna attack DPS are all too willing. To eliminate that part of the context. And that there are adult people who have adult issues who wanna go after DPS for their adult pieces and try to weaponize data to do so

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 34:45

and see this. I think where I disagree is I would hope that other cities and I do think there are other cities that have a strong. Advocacy community that you're change changes is you wanna affect change locally. And there are other organizations nationally that are doing national advocacy and trying to change things either at systemwide levels beyond school districts, but doing it statewide or doing it na federally. But what I appreciate about organizations like Denver families and other organizations here in Denver, that. Care about students and also care about equity is they're focusing on their local community. And I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for Denver families to try to solve the national issue of testing or solve the state-based as assess assessment work, because they're focused on Denver, right? And so what.

Scott Esserman 35:47

And I'm sorry, I misspoke. I don't think that they're responsible for fixing that. I think they're responsible for in an honest conversation which I don't find that they're always willing to do.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 36:00

I see

Scott Esserman 36:02

That they don't even discuss the national context. And

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 36:06

That's helpful. That's helpful,

Scott Esserman 36:08

right. That there's, a clear pursuit of agenda there that it, that for a long time has included expanding the number of charter seats that, that. That includes and I think it's fair to say that I demonstrated through action and through vote that I'm not remotely anti-reform. That one of the reasons I'm sitting here and not speaking to you as a board member is because I'm pro kid. So if that means that when the union is claiming that there's something in the contract that they didn't get in terms of their cola, when in fact that's not what the contract says, I'm gonna say that.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 36:45

And I, the, I would argue, yeah, I would argue the part of the reason you were didn't win is that you weren't bought and sold by one Drew. Which again, I appreciate that about you.

Scott Esserman 36:54

I would agree with that statement and appreciate you saying so.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 36:56

And may maybe I could have said it differently though. Apologies on the language. Could have said it.

Scott Esserman 37:01

No I'm not upset with you. Like you didn't say anything.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 37:04

Oh, no.

Scott Esserman 37:05

Unfair.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 37:05

No. That language of spot and sold probably wasn't the appropriate language. I'm just saying you're not beholden to. Any one group or yeah. Interest group which I appreciate.

Scott Esserman 37:18

And I would tell you if we don't cover we're trying to cover minimally four years of DPS in, in 45 minutes. And, I am certainly willing to come back on. If we don't get to everything or if there are things that we don't get to that, that you feel like you'd like to

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 37:41

yeah let's plan on having you back on, but maybe let's finish with safety and there's a lot of follow ups we can have here. Alan, I know you have follow ups on the safety questions, so I

Scott Esserman 37:50

I, so I heard the initial safety question and unless, do you have anything else you wanna add to that, Alan?

Alan Gottlieb 37:56

No, just go. No, I really don't.

Scott Esserman 37:59

Okay. So one is and I made this point. Actually at at one of the board meetings where, Alexis, where you were given public comment, which is the, people complaining about Dr. Marrero, some of the disingenuous, resigned DPS board folks some other folks who consistently wanted to attack and hang on. That that what Dr. Morero said at, on the day of the shooting at ease, was that, that he wanted SROs back in the building and, that he was willing to violate policy to do okay. That was upsetting to many of us as board members. But I didn't hear a single person who had been making noise about safety had been making noise about the SROs being absent, give him credit for that. Like that didn't happen, which was fascinating. He, safety is critical to him and he's made that clear. And I think that there is, I think, Alan, that there are really important conversations to be had around safety. And I think that unfortunately when we're talking about SROs that are in a maximum of 17 of our buildings, right? You may recall that, that when we felt forced. To reverse on SROs and when it was clear that the writing was on the wall, what what Vice President Anderson and Director Alban and myself wanted to propose was a model of a community resource officer that would've been more geographical and regional than what we see as an individual in a building. And that and that the board chair at the time. President Gean made sure that we never even actually considered that option and instead moved to returning SROs of the building. And I think, look, from an equity point of view, SROs are problematic. And that it is much I think many of the things that we do at airports about creating an illusion of safety. That parents think if there are SROs there, there won't be fights. If there are SROs there, nothing bad will happen if there are SROs there. There couldn't possibly be a school shootings in spite of the fact that many of our national school shootings were at schools that had SROs. And there's a, there's unfortunately a lot in terms of people's perceptions and agendas that prevents us from having a really healthy and honest conversation about what school safety could or should look like. Is that fair?

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 41:24

Yeah, that, that's really helpful. And I think we this is where I, would love to have you back on and, talk about this more, and we just don't have time. As SROs, as you mentioned, weren't talking about 17 school buildings in high schools, but there's this bigger or not. Bigger issue. There are other issues that also exist around the positions that we're putting features in the position we're putting principles in, and when students are especially students with special needs may have may have situations where they're harming themselves or others. And so that's just another layer that we don't have time to get into today and, would love to have you back on to talk about that and other things. But, with that in mind. I don't have any, I I have a million more questions would love to stay on for a whole other podcast, but I know we're running out of time, so I don't have any more questions. I just really appreciate you coming on. I also wanna just acknowledge I haven't always been fair and I've named called you in the past, so I wanna publicly apologize to you for that and really appreciate you taking the time to be with us today and having this nuanced conversation.

Scott Esserman 42:35

I appreciate that, and as I say I'm, more than willing to come back on if it's got additional things at length and, yeah, there and it I, think it's unfortunate that, at least from my perspective, and because of some of that more aggressive specifically calling me out and attacking me behavior we didn't have these conversations when I was on the board.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 43:00

Yep.

Scott Esserman 43:02

And that was, that, that was certainly my choice. But when I was on the board I'm not gonna take time to try and make things right with people who don't seem to want to. And, who who, who are gonna come after me on a more personal level? As opposed to, those disagreements that, I think are healthy and important. I have, I disagree with people all the time. Done it my entire life. And, there's I appreciate being able to have the conversation and the acknowledgement on both your parts. And for me, the important piece is that we're moving forward and that were. We're talking about these things in a way that, that improved experiences and outcomes for kids.

Alan Gottlieb 44:02

Agreed. I, the only thing I would say back is that I said I, I feel like I went over line personally a couple of times. I feel like, a lot of my criticisms were based on decisions and policy. But occasionally I did once in a while step over the line. But I do think it's okay to disagree, especially with somebody who's a public official, pretty pointedly. And that I'm glad we're now having the dialogue and yes, I wish we'd had it earlier as well. There are a bunch of other issues that we didn't even have time to get to today, Scott, so we will definitely have you back on ranging from the the Youngquist Center and everything around that to some other issues that we haven't talked about. Anyway, thanks. Thanks again for coming on. And we will continue this conversation for sure going forward. So thanks again. I look forward

Audio Only - All Participants 44:50

to

Scott Esserman 44:50

it. Thank you.

Alan Gottlieb 44:51

All right,

Alexis Menocal Harrigan 44:51

bye everyone.