Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.
Dear Editor:
In response to Diane Hannah’s critique (published Oct. 20) of my previous letter to the editor (published Oct. 14), and in response to her nearly 11 months of repeated libelous attacks on my character, I would like to introduce myself to the broader community so that they hear from me directly.
Throughout the past couple of years, I have provided consulting for several parent and civil rights advocacy groups broadly across the state of Indiana. Education reform requires being informed of the broader context of what is set forth under Indiana laws, and which portions of the law could be amended to better serve Hoosier students. These are incredibly complex conversations, and my role is to help my clients navigate the proper legislative processes required to effect the change they wish to advocate for. This is democracy in action! I have not founded any groups and do not participate in the actions Ms. Hannah has repeatedly claimed. I can’t imagine a world in which consultants are responsible for all actions taken by their clients, past, present, and future.
In my previous letter, I highlighted an instance where transparency was lacking in Carmel Clay Schools (CCS) regarding closed-door Social Emotional Learning (SEL) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) committees. The transparency laws expert, Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (PAC), sided with parents in that the school should not “establish secret committees populated with agreeable stakeholders for the ease and comfort of vetting controversial topics” and that “It will not happen right now on the PAC’s watch.”
Ms. Hannah asserts that CCS limits transparency due to “concerns for personal safety” and “privacy laws.” Citizens of Hamilton County, please be advised that there is no “right to privacy” under Indiana’s transparency laws while sitting on a public committee taking “official action” on “public business.” These facts are not in dispute by the school. After six inquiries to the school administration (my “trust but verify” emails), and after asking them to define the committee’s role, if not “official action,” they ceased communication completely. According to IC 5-14-1.5-2(d), “Official action” means to:
(1) receive information; (2) deliberate; (3) make recommendations; (4) establish policy; (5) make decisions; or (6) take final action.
The school’s own recruiting document explicitly indicated which official action they would be taking: to “provide honest and constructive input and feedback,” “review Panorama survey data and provide perspective, feedback, and suggestions,” “make recommendations on how the district can improve SEL (and DEI) programming and initiatives,” provide “recommendations on SEL (and DEI) goals, initiatives, and programming,” and “provide perspective on what information needs to be communicated to parents and how information on SEL (and DEI) initiatives is best communicated.” These actions drive policymaking and nearly perfectly align with the statutory definition above.
Ms. Hannah asserts that the school follows legal advice; however, in this instance, initial advice issued by PAC in December 2021 was ignored and the committees were kept closed-door for the remainder of the school year. Contrary to Ms. Hannah’s claim that parents were uninterested in the identity of the committee members, my clients were astonished to discover the committee members would be analyzing the Panorama data. Parents have the right to be concerned with who has access to their children’s sensitive information. Panorama is the company founded by the son-in-law of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland for the purpose of collecting SEL data. Panorama is a vast software platform offering behavior analytics, behavioral interventions, and uses heat mapping to track the “student success” of the SEL programming. Where does this student data go? How is it used? Panorama’s own contract with Carmel Clay Schools indicates they may use the aggregate data for research; however, a child’s own parent is not allowed to view their data.
According to an email dated Aug. 22, 2022, the school did not find records indicating completion of committee member background checks. I find it particularly interesting that the current school board is recommending that parents not be allowed in the lunchroom, meanwhile, staffing committees with unscreened and unverified parents that have access to student data. The importance of this cannot be minimized. When Ms. Hannah asserts “there is no good reason for anyone to know or care who we were,” I would vehemently disagree, as does PAC. Who is she to dismiss parents’ concerns? There is no basis for which to “trust” since one cannot “verify.”
Ms. Hannah, seemingly speaking in official capacity for Carmel Clay Schools, has agreed with the spirit of my original letter. Personal attacks aside, she admits the school did intend to hide these committee members under a false pretense of privacy rights while refusing to produce the records they are legally obligated to provide. CCS removed the names of the committee members who wished to remain secret. The original request for records included a redacted list of selection criteria and names of committee members. Contrary to Ms. Hannah, no “private” information was ever requested regarding religion, ethnic background, disability, or gender identification, although Panorama collects the latter three.
The point here is not whether the committees themselves establish policy. The point is that parents should be provided with transparency as it relates to matters that impact their children prior to implementation. CCS is clearly not providing this level of transparency. Committee members confident enough to take “official action” on “public business” should expect to lawfully operate in the open, “cannot hide their identities or activities while doing so (Luke Britt, 22-FC-34)”, and should stop labelling concerned parents as “hostile.”
Jennifer Hendrix
Carmel
Jennifer – thank you for setting the record straight in a kind and respectful manner in light of the never-ending personal attacks that continue towards you. You are doing important work to help community members follow the legal process for education reform AND shedding light on the lack of transparency that abounds within CCS despite misinformation and misdirection otherwise.
Jennifer- Diane Hannah’s personal attacks directed towards you are beyond unprofessional, lacking civility, and full of misinformation (all from a college professor no less). I appreciate your willingness to stand for parental rights and transparency in Carmel public schools. We have seen how their lack of transparency is damaging to our community.
I tried to share similar sentiments with Diane and her supporters. I was told to leave her alone because she is a private citizen. Albeit doing some very public things.
I appreciate the information you are bringing forth esp. about Panoroma. As quoted “Panorama is the company founded by the son-in-law of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland for the purpose of collecting SEL data. Panorama is a vast software platform offering behavior analytics, behavioral interventions, and uses heat mapping to track the “student success” of the SEL programming. Where does this student data go? How is it used?
Your posted question of how and what this information is used is problematic esp. when Merrick Garland’s name is involved.
Will this information follow students for life? How will this info affect the parents and families of these students? And lastly, what is SEL? I know it is Social Emotional Learning.
Are our students in such life learning trouble that they need this to help them?
Dear Ms. Hendrix,
A few things:
#1: I apologize for claiming you were a founder of the hate group Moms For Liberty, Hamilton County. I assumed this was the case because you are seated at the front left of the picture they shared which they distributed under the label: “Founders’ Meeting.” I am sure you can allow that this was an honest mistake.
#2. Isn’t it *worse*, though, that you are the legal facilitator of a hate group that harasses and doxxes local educators? You could easily disavow their message or their tactics, since you were not a “founder”–and yet you choose not to.
#3. I stand behind everything I said in that letter, and everything I have said about you (excepting the error addressed in point #1 above), which is all a matter of public record.
#4. Because you are the campaign manager of a slate of school board candidates in Carmel, your qualifications and associations are a matter of vital interest to voters. Pointing them out, simply and factually (as I have done), is not harassment.
#5. I do not speak for the district. I am simply speaking for myself: I am a CCS parent who is involved in the schools (as all parents are invited to be), who has personally experienced the deep transparency of the district, and who wanted to counter your alarmist and dishonest portrayal of the committee I personally was involved in.
Best,
Diane
P.S. For anyone who takes exception to the claim that M4LHamCo is a hate group, please consult the ADL update linked below and compare the practices and language identified there to M4LHamCo’s use of those same practices and language to target LGBTQIA+ citizens: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community.
I asked to school to tell me how many fewer teachers we have due to our drop in enrollment and they have not provided a whole number answer. I can attest to the lack of transparency, which is unprecedented for a public agency. In regards to my request, the school is acting like they are private school.
Having read several of the letters & listed responses regarding the looming school board elections county wide, the takeaway has become ; how embarrassing for so many supposed ‘adults’
Identifying ones self image only through the prism of a political ideology leaves little room for anything resembling meaningful discourse & puts us in a position where we can’t even agree on what the facts are.
Without that basic premise in place .. many are acting more like the children they profess to care so much about than someone who is qualified for a position of leadership.
.
Ms. Hannah,
Thank you for your apology for incorrectly and repeatedly accusing me of creating a “hate group”. I will fully accept this apology as you provide proof that you have retracted your statements about me over the past 11 months to all public broadcasts, newspapers, social media posts, and the like. Also attempting to interfere with one’s career is rather poor judgement and numerous community members have asked you to refrain. Again, you misrepresent my role and career. I am not a “legal facilitator”, as in, I am not a legal representative for any parent advocacy or civil rights group. I advise on legislative affairs, which involves freely sharing information from discussions originating in the legislative branch of government. Legal representation would be accomplished on the executive or judicial side.
Your definition of “doxxing and harassing” differs from the legal definition. Sharing public information publicly is neither doxxing nor harassing”. Your opinion of my role in providing legislative updates to those who wish to be informed is inconsequential. I will always help fellow citizens find a voice for issues they care about, including parents’ rights in education and civil rights. It’s up to them to decide what those issues are and I help them find the path. Advocacy in action!
You have posted factually inaccurate information about my role (see your point #1) over 47 times in 11 months. Any regular citizen would consider that to be a level of harassment, and yet you decry parent advocacy groups for “harassing” others. Do you not see the irony? The committee you are speaking for was in blatant violation of Open Door Law, according to the Public Access Counselor’s authority, who was given this power by the state of Indiana to determine such matters. You can dislike the decision, but as he stated in his opinion, it seems to be a problem of their (CCS’s) own making.
I truly hope that CCS changes the way in which it conducts regular business matters and chooses to fulfill its legal obligations. Skirting around legal requirements to conceal the identity of public committee members is not what the community expects.