By Charles Loiacono     

Notes on Stonewalling

             As with Stonewall Jackson whose line stood like a stone wall at Manassas, anyone that refuses to comply is thought to be stonewalling. In today’s vernacular, we refer to stonewalling as a delaying tactic—withholding information to deny someone the time they need to peruse the information.

            There is no need for someone to delay sharing informational facts unless that someone has something to hide. Therefore, when we request information from this administration, we expect to be stonewalled. That has always been the case when the Fanelli/Ostling team holds back certain facts they do not want to see the light of day.

         On August 28, 2007, AFA Vice-President Bob Gaudino requested of Jack Ostling eight bits of information related to the LINCC program. The request was straightforward and the information readily available. We needed the facts in order to prepare a response to the PERB petition filed by the administration and to prepare for the pending arbitration. The AFA has a legal right to that information. But four months went by with Ostling refusing to comply with the AFA’s request.

            Growing tired of Ostling’s stonewalling, I instructed our attorneys to subpoena the information. Before doing so, Richard Betheil, AFA attorney, called John Gross, administration’s attorney, and told him that he was about to serve a subpoena. Gross, knowing the law, told Betheil that he would inform Ostling to comply.

            And so, the Friday before a Tuesday conference at PERB, the information we requested four months ago arrived at our attorney’s office. I did not see the material until the day after the conference.

            After perusing the response to our August request, I understood why this administration did not want the truth to be known. It never fails. When this administration stonewalls, it’s time to be suspicious, because they’re hiding something.

            At this point, our readers are well versed in the machinations of the scab saga and the big lie that is the LINCC scam. Fanelli and Ostling are pretending that the LINCC program is brand new—different from ELI and ESL. How does the stonewalled information expose the lie?

            The first thing we learned is that most of the LINCC teachers are the same teachers that taught ELI. The so-called curriculum is the standard run-of-the-mill objectives and outcomes widely promulgated. The bottom line is that teaching English as a second language is teaching English as a second language whether you call it ESL or ELI or LINCC. Retaining the same teachers and recycling objectives and outcomes does not constitute the creation of an entirely new program. Indeed, the ersatz material proves that the objectives, outcomes, and hours are the same for LINCC as they were for ELI.

            Jack Ostling had good reason to withhold the information for four months. Had he not been forced, he would have never released the truth. He knew it would be his undoing. Truth has always been the enemy of this administration. What a way to live! Imagine being so ashamed of what you have wrought that you and it must live in the shadows. To what end? What will they have gained and what will they have lost?

            Time alone has been gained. When weighed against what they have lost, and will have lost, the imbalance is staggering.

            We are in for the long haul. When this all plays out, the administration will lose only money and credibility. The ensuing loses will be cumulative and far more significant than that.