Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Peggy and Dennis

Remember this Guy?

Sure you do.

That's former NBA star Dennis Rodman, the poster child for the Competence-Deviance Hypothesis. In a nutshell, the premise is that the more competent an individual is, the more deviance will be tolerated in him or her by others. So in the case of Dennis Rodman, Detroit, San Antonio, Chicago and others all tolerated, at some expense, Dennis's proclivities for flamboyant stylings - even those that were a big departure from the expectations placed on others.

Why? There was a lot Dennis could not do; like shoot freethrows or hit a 3-pointer.

The reason lies in what Dennis could do. He could rebound. He could rebound a lot. Over a 14-year career Rodman pulled down an average of 13.1 rebounds a night. 18 per game in his prime at Detroit in 91-92 when he gathered more than thousand for the season.

Given so much competence in a critical area - Dennis was allowed to be deviant in others.

This was essentially the argument made by Superintendent Stu Silberman and the Fayette County school directors who evaluated former BTWA Principal Peggy Petrilli as they try to explain to the jury how anyone could rack up such a significant list of management problems - a list that would place lesser beings squarely in the cross hairs - and not have a one of them show up on her evaluations.

Catch us tomorrow morning and I'll share today's testimony as Petrilli's attorney bore down.

In the are a few tweets: Read 'em from the bottom up.

Reday000Court in recess until Monday morning.about 1 hour ago from mobile web

Reday000Jurors indicate to Judge that they all can continue to serve next week. from mobile web

Reday000Plaintiff rests. from mobile web

Reday000Judge says it looks like another long day Monday...possible Tuesday. from mobile web

Reday000 Golden calls Brenda Allen. Court rules Allen does not have to appear due to attorney client privilege. from mobile web

Reday000Judge confers with attorneys on remainder of trial. from mobile web

Reday000Silberman excused. from mobile web

Reday000Golden: "Wasn't the goal to send Carmen & Fabio out to her house, to pressure her to resign. from mobile web

Reday000Golden bears down on Silberman. from mobile web

Reday000Stu: That's the bottom line on this whole situation. I did not make Peggy leave. from mobile web

Reday000"Did you throw Peggy under the bus? Stu "Oh no. Peggy made the decision to leave." from mobile web

Reday000Court resumes. Stu still on the stand. from mobile web
Reday000After side bar...McNeilll begins cross. from mobile web

Reday000Golden: "Didn't you decide it would just be easier to turn your back on Peggy?" Stu: "That is just not true." from mobile web

Reday000Golden concludes. McNeil reserves right to recall Silberman. Does not cross. from mobile web

Reday000Stu: Peggy could have gone back to BTWA. from mobile web

Reday000Stu is back on the stand. Lisa Stone is probably next. from mobile web

Reday000Trial resumes. from mobile web

Reday000McNeilll's client is Stu but it's also the Board. Is that the thing? ? ? ? from mobile web

Reday000Doesn't Stu own the privilege? Can't he waive it at will? Hummmm. from mobile web

Reday000...but he didn't say everything he wanted to citing priv. My question is.... from mobile web

Reday000...attny/client priv. Stu told the jury he wanted to answer and that "it was critical." ... from mobile web

Reday000Is there a lawyer in the house? Before lunch Golden asked Stu a question involving the board attorney. McNeilll cautioned Stu about ... from mobile web

Reday000This AM: Ishmael admonished attorneys "Remember Rule # 1...Attnys ask...Witnesses answer...and can explain. from mobile web

Reday000Stu said: I knew her to be an outstanding instructional leader...had a significant issue with management...relationships from mobile web

Reday000Court in recess until 1PM from mobile web

Reday000Stu: Sir, There was nothing more that I wanted than for Peggy Petrilli to succeed from mobile web

Reday000Stu on Aug 22 Mtg:I thought it was just one more thing that Peggy had gotten us into. I was there to smooth things out. from mobile web


Anonymous said...

To be as civil as I can, it is clear to me that Stu Silberman is not telling the truth. Peggy Petrilli was sacrificed to the dogs so that Stu could stop Berry and Clark from marching on Central Office.

Just as Rick Pitino could not run with the Celtics, so too is former Owensboro superintendent Silberman showing his utter ineptness at dealing with a diverse, untidy district like the Fayette County School System.

Anonymous said...

Abuse comes in many forms. Stu Silberman is a person who witholds the truth. In plain English, he would be called a _ _ _ R.

Stu Silberman silenced dissent from his teaching staff. This would make him, in plain English, a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R.

I agree with the previous reviewer. Mr. Silberman (no earned doctorate) sacrificed Mrs. Petrilli to the dogs, frightened by the Berrys --yes, the same family that produced Ron Berry--- fearing a potential backlash from the African American community.

Anonymous said...

Always stirring the pot now, aren't you? Geez, move on, Petrelli lost, get over it.

Richard Day said...

Well, this is a surprise.

If generating conversation about issues is stirring the pot we're guilty. But this post is so totally out of context it demands an explanation.

KSN&C received a request this week from Google (or perhaps Dennis Rodman) to change a lovely image we used of Rodman in a post we did in July of 2009. Rather than fuss about it, I changed the image and reposted the item, assuming it would go back where it belonged, among the stories of the Petrilli v Silberman trial. I was surprised this morning to find it posted at the top of the blog, where frankly, it makes no sense.

While we're happy to stir things up a bit, that was NOT my intention here. If it was, I hope I would have done it better than this.

I agree with the commenter. The trial is over. If KSN&C ever brings the topic up again it will be in some kind of context.

My apologies to both Peggy and Stu for this unanticipated result.

Michael Stone said...

I would have to strongly agree with you on this. Look at pop culture for example, you have Lady GaGa, Nicki Minaj, Ke$ha, and several other "stars" that just do outrageous things. I say things simply because they can range from wardrobe to actually aspects of the life and performance. And we accept these outrageous things because they dominate in one area, such as music for the ones I mentioned. So is it so out there to say that if you get good enough at one thing you can behave however you like? There's something to ponder on.