Oyster River High School students as well as the school's administration are to be congratulated for the civil and responsible way they reacted Thursday to the School Board's rejection of Justin Campbell to be the next principal.
At the same time, Foster's Daily Democrat must chastise the School Board for its vote and the tight-lipped way it has handled criticism.
On Monday, the School Board rejected the nomination of Campbell, director of academic studies at Milford High School. He would have taken over for Laura Rogers, who is leaving in June. His selection came at the end of an exhaustive review of dozens of candidates, with the goal of having a replacement by the time Rogers departs.
However, after coming out of executive session, the board rejected the nomination by a 4-3 vote. This set off a storm of criticism the board has refused to deal with other than to say it was a personnel matter and to indicate it may also be a budget matter connected to state funding.
On Wednesday, Foster's Daily Democrat was notified students were planning to walk out in protest the following day.
The term "walkout" conjures up images of the 1960s when students surprised administrations by leaving the classroom unannounced or staging sit-ins.
On Thursday, the student walkout was anything but disrespectful or a surprise. And there were no sit-ins, just respectful protest.
For the administration's part, Superintendent Howard Colter greeted respect with respect. He welcomed a student delegation to his office to discuss the matter.
Now it is time for the Oyster River School Board to do the same.
Hiding behind the Right to Know law's personnel exception is cowardly. It may also be in violation of the law.
If, as statements have indicated, the board is concerned with state funding cuts, there is nothing to prevent board members from saying so.
The board also had options on Monday other than a simple up-or-down vote on Campbell. Again, if the concern was over money — salary or otherwise — a vote could have simply been delayed until the next meeting.
Instead the board voted to reject Colter's nomination of Campbell with apparently no explanation to anyone — a slap in the face to those who put in countless hours vetting candidates.
Concerns have been growing for some time that the Oyster River School Board has become dysfunctional and that infighting among members has taken over.
The topic has been fodder for accusations during the last few election cycles.
The board's handling of Campbell's nomination only continues to foster the belief that board members have moved farther away from their job of serving the residents of the district and particularly the students, focusing more on their own petty squabbles.
Foster's Daily Democrat would hope there is a cogent and acceptable explanation for Monday's vote. If so, the students, the school's administration and this newspaper are more than willing to listen.
To that end, the School Board should do the responsible thing — as students did on Friday — and clear the air with a thorough explanation of Monday's vote.
It's what they owe the community.
I would like to know which school board members were interviewed for any of Foster's coverage. I don't object to the newspaper taking a stance. I do object to the slanted coverage with many missing facts, including that the Board wanted to postpone the vote and was told that was not possible.
ReplyDeleteYes, the non-public minutes reflect a vote to postpone, and the motion failed. The minutes do not reflect discussion that the Board was "told that was not possible".
ReplyDeleteAgreed. There are two sides to every argument and Foster's isn't doing a good job getting the other side.
ReplyDeleteI also want to know about the action plan moving forward as well as the reasons why the candidate wasn't selected but people have to understand that the NH State laws are complex and anything said could be used as litigation against the board.
Imagine sitting on the board, having students, teachers, community members, and the press looking in and criticizing. Any one word or phrase taken out of context could mean disastrous results. The response to the public must be cross-checked by lawyers just to make sure. People have to remember that the members on the board aren't lawyers and a deep understanding of the Right to Know laws as well as non-public protocol is not easy to understand especially with the rest of the board business they need to conduct.
Put yourselves in their shoes...if anything you said could be held against you and you weren't sure what you could or couldn't say, what would you do? Each and every board member has their reasons for the vote that took place and I am hoping that those reasons will be made public.
Just to put things in perspective:
ReplyDeleteWhen Don Maynard's (athletic director) contract wasn't renewed, the public outcry was similar. The board said NOTHING. They were silent. Just like today.
When the MS principal search was being conducted, the process was more involved and it also took longer. There was more community input sought during the process. Why was the HS search done differently?
RE: the athletic director was an employee in the district, and the Board did renew the contract in the end. The Board learned a lot in that process, and I will leave it at that.
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate though, on specifically what was different on the MS search? What community input was different than the HS search? I'm curious, as a committee member, to learn about this difference.
I believe the Board supported the MS committee with its recommendation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow, according to this, Foster's admits to being told Wed that their was going to be a walk out on Thursday. I suspected as much as their was a staff photographer present.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am supposed to believe this was not organized. Not buying it.
As far as Foster's goes, they don't get much exciting news in the Seacoast & they almost ignore Durham/Lee/Madbury....so they must be all excited over their on Central Ave.
It would serve this blog if bloggers did a little homework before posting.
ReplyDelete1)SB minutes clearly state a motion to delay the principle vote was voted down by the SB themselves
2) in earlier stories Fosters stated they reached out to the SB for comment and received none( I understand they may not have been ready to comment but fosters did try)
3) the topic of the Principle search came up many times durning the last several meetings and not once did the board vote to stop the process
4) information about state budget cuts have been discussed for a couple of months and it has been known that we will not have answers until later this year -june? again the board choose not to stop the principle search.
it seems clear to alot of people that the board
is having many problems. I would like to know if the board intends to use the $ 15000 that was voted in to help this problem.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteThe minutes of 2-11-09 show that the Board accepted Marcia Ross's resignation, and that JoAnn P. and Kim C volunteered to serve on the MS Principal Search Committee.
The minutes of 4-15-09 show a motion to nominate Jay Richard as the MS principal.
This is the same exact timeline as the HS Search. It did occur during an election: Jocelyn and Mark were the newly elected members in March of 09.
Also, could you please expand upon your comment of "multiple public correspondence"? Again, I am not clear what occurred for the MS Search that didn't occur with the HS Search.
Jennifer - you're right. I apologize for posting the previous comments. I didn't fact check and my memory of the event was not what happened. I will remove that comment so as not to confuse anyone else.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarification and the sources! I appreciate it.
Thank you, Seth. I appreciate your comment.
ReplyDeleteChrisAnn- What do you mean about the walk out not being organized? It was organized by the students, right?
ReplyDeleteLaura,
ReplyDeleteOne of the students on this blog specified it was not organized and he/she [i can't recall] didn't know until Thursday. This student portrayed themselves as very involved. Yet, Foster's knew about the walkout Wed night.
I don't know who organized it, but it was obviously done to gain media attention. It WAS organized, not just some spontaneous activity on Thursday morning. They have the right to protest, don't get me wrong.
I am thrilled it was much different than Wed night, as I've said in other posts, the atmosphere was much more respectful. I may have had reservations about taking my son to PEP with a walkout happening at the same time, had I known in advance.
it was organized by students and students alone. Fosters was notified by a student on wednesday night.
ReplyDeleteAnd more power to the students for taking the time to organize it. I am in total disagreement with ChrisAnn and her portrayal of the HS student's behavior at the Board meeting Wednesday night. I was also there. They were polite, respectful and considerate. The adults at the meeting should take their lead from them. They were the ones being disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteIt would serve this blog well if people would do a little homework before blogging.
ReplyDelete1)SB minutes show that a motion was made to put off the Principle vote to a later date -this motion was voted down by the board themselves
2)sb minutes show that over several weeks the principle search was discussed and at no time did they ask that it be stopped.
3) state budget cuts have been discussed for at least a couple of months at no time did the board say lets stop the search.
As for Fosters one sided view-the paper wrote several stories and in one stated that they had asked for comment from two SB members and received
"no comment" ( I understand that they may not have been ready to respond but Fosters did ask)
I have a student at the HS- wed night after the board said they would not respond to the students concerns my child told me about the walkout the
students had planned. I asked my child why he wanted to take part, he was able to give me an educated response and I gave my blessing.
I keep sending my post but it seems to go missing?
ReplyDeleteWHY?
Thanks for the clarifications.
ReplyDeleteThe school board minutes are posted and people should look at them before posting wrong info.
ReplyDelete1) a motion to delay the vote was voted down by the board themselves.
2) the board had many discussions about the process and never voted to stop it.
3) the SB was aware of budget cuts from the state level and never voted to stop the process and will not know what those cuts will be until june
Also Fosters wrote that they tried to get a comment from board members and received " no comments".I
understand that the SB may not have been ready to comment but Fosters did try.
I belive the SB should have known that the vote they took would raise questions. So why didn't they take the time to respond to the public.
.
ReplyDeleteLearning the comment system, apologies.
ReplyDeleteFosters didn't like the decision? Even more evidence that the four members did the right thing. It would be very dangerous for pro-principal advocates to use this famously ignorant newspaper in their advocacy efforts. Immediate credibility turnoff for the thinking ranks of Oyster River voters.
What is "a pro-principle advocate" ?
ReplyDeleteSomeone who thinks that a high school should have a principal ?
Count me in!!!
It's unfortunate that the meeting was not televised. I hope the 27th is for this very issue alone. I am not alone in thinking that interrupting the school board meeting repeatedly, during non public comments, is appropriate or respectful. Whether a student or an adult. The public comment time is for public comments, speaks for itself. To loudly disagree with and/or demand a response from the school board as it's working is both rude and non productive for the meeting.
ReplyDeleteAnd language I heard in the foyer/hall especially that directed at school board members can't be thought to be appropriate, respectiful, or civil from anyone's point of view.
As I've said before, sorry if my standards are higher than yours.
Sue -
ReplyDeleteRegarding your questions. Again, I am not speaking from a factual standpoint but rather what my thoughts are regarding the situation.
1. Yes - they motioned to try and delay the vote for three reasons
a - gather more info
b- review interview questions more thoroughly
c-get information from the state
This got voted down as you mentioned. I do not know why but this was also a 4-3 vote with different members voting for the delay vs. voting for the rejection of the principal nomination. My assumption from this is that the board was truly split and went into non-public without a personal or political agenda on what they were going to do. I really think this could have gone either way. There was no consensus when you look at both votes in this non-public session.
2. Again, looking at my reasoning on #1, without the board really having a bias or agenda with this particular hire, I don't think they wanted to stop it and even if some members did, I don't think it would have passed anyway. You are right though, there were chances in the past to stop the process but with such a split decision, again, I disagree that the board went into non-public with their minds made up.
3. The budget is always a lightning rod for debate in this community. Some feel it's justified and others feel it's bloated. We also have people in the administration who may have applied or who may want to be HS principal. Since either of the two candidates didn't have principal experience, why wouldn't we look to promote from the inside like the MS? Again, this is all assuming that we had one or more of the 44 candidates that were existing employees. I do not know if that's true. However, it is true that we have a few individuals who are complementary at this point to the HS principal. Did one of them apply and were they considered fully?
Back to the original reason for your comment - I do agree that we all deserve the reasons behind. I am just looking at it from both sides. I can see your frustrations but can also see the difficulties in actually voting this way. Also, the HS must have a principal by the fall so I'm sure come September there will be someone in that office.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comment.
As a parent of a HS student having "someone in place
by sept" is not what I'm looking for.
Also my concern is that the board seems unable
to make decisions ex; offering retirement incentives- if you look back in SD minutes they talked about this at least twice before the last meeting. When asked to ok it at a recent meeting they choose to put it off again.
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with this option. By not voting on these issues it could take this option off the table.
Again as the parent of a HS student I do not have time for the SB to get their act together.
Seth, do you have a high school or middle school age child? Will ChristyAnn have someone impacted by this decision with in the next couple years? I agree with Sue that just having a warm body in place in the principals office is not good enough, and I really resent the people who are not impacted by this decision implying that it is. I don't mean to diminish the middle school or elementary school principal's positions, but a high school principal is one of the most important positions in the district. To basically say we can just put in a warm body ("Hey, any volunteers at the high school? Maybe the administrators can all trade off a day.") is insulting to that position, and is in direct contradiction to anyone who also says they want oyster river to be the best school in the state. Do you people have any idea what this action has done to the reputation of Oyster River? Do you really think the superintendent candidates are going to be beating down the door to work for this school board that acts like this?
ReplyDeleteChrisAnn,
ReplyDeleteThe meeting was televised and played several times over the last few days !
Again I think if people would do some homework before posting it would be helpful!
I am very upset with what I heard this weekend from a school board member. I thought that they were not allowed to talk about what happens in non public. Am I wrong ? This member was very upset and was explaining what took place.
ReplyDeleteIf this is not allowed then were would one report this and to whom?
If you want to make a formal complaint, I would contact Henry Brackett, Board Chair, Ann Wright, Board Vice Chair and/or Supt. Colter with your concerns.
ReplyDeletei have been hearing rumors as well about the actual reasons for rejecting a principle. I would rather have heard it from their face at the meeting than through the grape vine
ReplyDeleteWell, what about the interview with Howard Colter on WMUR? See the link on the new blog post. He states that the decision may have something to do with multi-year contracts. If a board member is saying things from non-public, Mr. Colter is also guilty of the same thing on public TV.
ReplyDeleteThe morning after the non public meeting I was told how each member had voted. I thought at the time that it was just talk and did not share this info. When the minutes came out they reflected the same info.
ReplyDeleteI am very concerned that information is being shared by one or more members.If this is true it will only add fuel to the fire.
Seth- The comments from Mr. Colter in the WMUR interview regarding multi-year contracts were discussed in the public session on Wednesday night.
ReplyDeleteOk I have written this several times & for whatever reason it does not post.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear it's on Chn 22. I thought it was not taped as the planning board was taped at that time. I thought only 1 was taped at a time. Good, people can at least see how often the SB was interrupted during the meeting which was distracting to them and others. I doubt viewers can hear the comments not made at the microphone. And I sincerly doubt the most severe comments made in the hallway were taped.
Many times comments have been made about the disrespect the SB showed the students during the meeting. Many times specifics have been asked. I haven't seen a response. The only situation I saw, when I walked in the room, was when Mr. Kach was visible upset and speaking to Cody [i believe]. I don't know what happened. I missed it. I also believe that Mr. Kach have one of those large voices that almost always dances on the edge of sounding hard towards people. I suspect he's loud when he whispers. I'm not critizing him or excusing what was happening that night, just commenting that men I know like him ~with that kind of voice~ struggle with it.
Regarding whether or not this immediately affects my kids. Yes, my stepchild could enroll tomorrow. My eldest natural child will be starting probably as this starts to even out and/or when the HS principal is settled in and hitting their stride. But besides that, we are a community. Not segments segregated to bubbles on their own islands.
Our property values, rents, business development ~ to name a few ~ are tied to the reputation of the school district. No one, even whether they have or will have a child in the district should be segregated into a corner for those 'not allowed to comment concerns".
Seth,
ReplyDeleteIt'unfortunate that instead of holding SB members responsible. if they are breaking rules, you choose to throw Howard under the bus.
In my opinion the reason for the uproar is the fact that there was no understanding of the boards vote.
The SB have said they can not share non=public discussions.Yet it seems clear that one or more are not following SB rules.This puts the district at risk of legal action.
"not allowed to comment concerns" - I did not see any prior posts with anyone saying that. Just one asking to see if you had a child who would be impacted in the immediate future with this decision.
ReplyDelete