From: Don Russ
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:16 PM

To: Julie Gottshall
Cc: (all Lake Bluff School Board Caucus members)
Subject: haughty Caucus

Julie,

Please do not respond to this email. There would be no advantage and it would incur needless risks for you.

Congratulations on a great interview with the Caucus this evening. I hope you get the job. I can’t help with that – I attended as an observer only and can’t vote. Indeed, the Caucus violated their own bylaws in preventing me for other participation, such as questioning or deliberating. (VII/E/4 says “to be eligible to vote” emphasis mine) But I think that most members are of good heart.

The Caucus attempts to solicit a broadly distributed membership at the expense of a wise one. Monday night, another candidate was asked “What would be the effect on class size if you get rid of some teachers?” which, strictly speaking, is nothing more than a Third Grade arithmetic question. Some members seem to think that naked disdain furthers their agenda.

You were the subject of a veiled disdain this evening. Since I am not currently connected to the Caucus, I certainly don’t owe you an apology, but somebody does. So I must say that I am very sorry for your shabby treatment.

One member asked you an incomprehensible question. (The 70 percent in the middle of the Bell Curve thing.) That has the effect of making you either struggle with an answer or admit that you struggle with the question. You attempted the former route. But the insidious questioner didn’t let you escape her trap, following with something like, “I guess you didn’t understand my question.”

By the time anyone reads this email, the Caucus will have made its choices and the sensible majority will probably have prevailed. Regardless, I had a pleasure from my brief time listening to you. Best wishes.

-Don Russ

From: Lynette Foss
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:41 AM

To: Don Russ
Cc: Kathleen Blahunka
Subject: Your Email to Julie Gottshall

Dear Don,

I'm responding to your email sent to Julie Gottshall, which was inappropriate at best.

I'm personally insulted that you called my question "haughty" and loaded with "veiled disdain" when you know NOTHING of the history leading up to that question nor my intent in asking it. The questions we ask come from a prepared list first, then if there is time we ask additional questions that are based on the infrmation contained in the written candidate applications as well as previous caucus discussions. If you had an issue with the question I asked you should have contacted me for clarification before making an accusation. Jumping to a negative conclusion is rarely the best approach in any situation.

What is more egregious is your attempt to undermine the credibility of the caucus by contacting a candidate directly and labeling us according to your misinterpretations. I'm not sure what your motivation was for this action when you have expressed an interest in serving on the caucus, but it seems to follow your past modus operandus of looking for trouble where there is none. I would guess that the group would not welcome your participation after this blatant show of hostility, but it doesn't appear to me as if you really want to be a part of it anyway.

I wish you well, and hope you can find constructive purpose.

Sincerely,
Lynette Foss

From: Don Russ
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 12:48 PM

To: Lynette Foss
Cc: Kathleen Blahunka; Mollie Mercado
Subject: RE: Your Email to Julie Gottshall

Lynette, you are quite incorrect on several points.

I was a proper observer: Invited, silent and respectful. My communication reached the candidate only after the Caucus had made its decision.

My reaction was an honest one. It was my clear perception and my reaction was responsive. My only interest was in giving legitimate feedback. Your “intent in asking it” really doesn’t matter; I know what I heard you say.

Now you claim that your question might have (you did not say that it does) come from “written candidate applications as well as previous caucus discussions” but that is not what you said at the time. You claimed to be reacting to the candidate’s comments about what she called “the gifted 5 or 10 percent and those at the other end of the spectrum.” You dissemble with your allusion to some previous data to which I was not privy. The question was incomprehensible but the context wasn’t.

Your snippy reference that my email “seems to follow your past modus operandus (sic) of looking for trouble where there is none” seems to be a reference to the evening that the Cub Scout leaders gathered at a residence for a Cub Scout dinner meeting on the eve of Election Day four years ago. You were childishly and incessantly mocking a candidate for high office, among other examples, saying in a shrill voice, “I can see Russia from my front porch”. When I suggested that we shouldn’t be hostile about political matters irrelevant to our meeting purpose you dismissed me saying, “Oh, we have all been friends for a long time. It’s all right.”

So you were claiming that anyone who would vote for Republicans wouldn’t fit into your elite group -- said elite group being the Lake Bluff Cub Scouts! Which is exactly what you are doing again saying, “I would guess that the group would not welcome your participation after this blatant show of hostility”. You are the only one hostile, then and now, without reason. Unless the Caucus approves of its members lashing out with arbitrary viciousness as you demonstrated then and now, then perhaps it is you who should leave.

My only reaction that night four years ago was to quietly leave and walk home. That is hardly an example of “of looking for trouble where there is none.” But that is exactly what you were doing with your comment to the Candidate, “I guess you didn’t understand my question.” It was a damning assertion that both suggested her inadequacy and your superiority. Slapping her with such a statement in the middle of her interview was cruel and could only have been intended to knock her off balance. It was uncivil, unhelpful and unkind.

“Haughty” is exactly what you were and exactly what the Caucus should not be. I wish you well and hope you can find constructive purpose.

-Don