If not ignorance, then what?
To the editor: The Oyster River community is being told by the School Board that a potential shortfall in state revenue is largely responsible for their decision to derail the search for a high school principal. Really? Then why did the board, when presented at the April 06 meeting with a list of personnel reductions to address any shortfall, ask the superintendent to come back to a future meeting with a new list of reductions with no cuts to personnel?
To be deliberating on budget reductions in April, one short month after the budget has been vetted and approved by voters is strange enough. State lawmakers have put us in that position. But debate about how to reduce spending belongs at the Board table.
Any decision to downsize the high school administration should take place in open deliberation — within a full budget discussion when priorities can be established and cuts made with sensitivity to educational goals — not behind closed doors.
I don't believe the board intends the high school to go without a principal. A more honest response would have been to simply say they didn't want this candidate. But that answer is problematic.
Four individual Board members rejected the nomination, two of whom have no direct experience with the high school, two of which had served on the board for less than one month at the time of the vote. How is it these individuals believe they know better than a full Search Committee of diverse stakeholders charged with the task of finding the best matched candidate? Better than the superintendent who works day in and day out with students, faculty and the district's leadership team? Better than the high school faculty, the students, and many parents who attended the Community event to meet the candidates?
All of these groups gave strong endorsements to the finalists. Yet four small votes pushed back this tide. If not ignorance, then what?
JoAnn Portalupi
Lee
To the editor: The Oyster River community is being told by the School Board that a potential shortfall in state revenue is largely responsible for their decision to derail the search for a high school principal. Really? Then why did the board, when presented at the April 06 meeting with a list of personnel reductions to address any shortfall, ask the superintendent to come back to a future meeting with a new list of reductions with no cuts to personnel?
To be deliberating on budget reductions in April, one short month after the budget has been vetted and approved by voters is strange enough. State lawmakers have put us in that position. But debate about how to reduce spending belongs at the Board table.
Any decision to downsize the high school administration should take place in open deliberation — within a full budget discussion when priorities can be established and cuts made with sensitivity to educational goals — not behind closed doors.
I don't believe the board intends the high school to go without a principal. A more honest response would have been to simply say they didn't want this candidate. But that answer is problematic.
Four individual Board members rejected the nomination, two of whom have no direct experience with the high school, two of which had served on the board for less than one month at the time of the vote. How is it these individuals believe they know better than a full Search Committee of diverse stakeholders charged with the task of finding the best matched candidate? Better than the superintendent who works day in and day out with students, faculty and the district's leadership team? Better than the high school faculty, the students, and many parents who attended the Community event to meet the candidates?
All of these groups gave strong endorsements to the finalists. Yet four small votes pushed back this tide. If not ignorance, then what?
JoAnn Portalupi
Lee
Thank you JoAnn, for your continued support of
ReplyDeleteeducation in our district.
It is a problem when the board does ANYTHING other than set and vote on policy.A school board needs to trust the administrators that they hire, in this case the reccomendation of the superintendent and the search team. YES, the board approval of a candidate should be a rubber stamp because they should TRUST the people who made the reccomendation and who spent the time vetting cadnidates!
ReplyDeleteDonald, if that is the case, then why is there a vote by the school board? I don't understand why there would be a vote. Doesn't a vote entail some sort of acceptance of responsibilty?
ReplyDeleteWe can all argue whether or not the vote was the correct one, I am just confused as to why so many people think they ought to vote with the recommendation. Seems that there should not be a vote then, if that is the feeling.
ChrisAnn,
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but the fact of the matter is that school boards and other elective bodies do rubber stamp votes all the time. In many school boards it is called the consent agenda. Most board members have a packet at least a week before the public meeting. In the packet are reports about all of the topics they will be voting on. It is the superintendent's job to communicate with board members prior to the meeting; to answer their questions and concerns and to, in this case, perhaps negotiate salary terms etc (I don't know) with the candidate. The fact that such an important decision was allowed to result in a very public split, to me, speaks volumes about a lack of leadership ability by the Superintendent. He HAD to know, or SHOULD have known that this vote would be close. It is / was the superintendent's job to get these board members (at least a majority of them) on the same page. And, if he realized he was not going to get them on the same page, he should have had a plan in place for dealing with the political fallout in a way that would minimize distractions for the students. To me, that is real leadership. Instead, this guy throws up his arms and says "I have no idea why the board voted that way." Come on buddy, step up!
So you are correct, the board does not have to, nor should they ever, vote based solely on the reccomendation, but the WHOLE process, from what I gather, has been botched due to a lack of leadership and a lack of trust.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe supt either knew the majoirty of the board would reject the candidate, or he didn't. If he knew, then he is guilty of letting this happen for some type of political reason (and that type of distraction is not good for kids). If he DIDN'T know, then he is guilty of being a poor communicator and a weak leader who is unable to build consensus and lead the district. Either way, the verdict is in. This superintendent is washed up and he needs to retire.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment, two actually (revised in the interest of lowering the volume):
ReplyDeleteONE: your attempts to smear and bash and discredit Supt. Colter are “transparent”. They are troubling and really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
upon reflection, and in the interest of lowering the volume, as Mr. Hilyard advocates, i repost my 12:50 comment:
ReplyDeleteyour first post seems like a set-up for your second one, bashing the Supt. i'm curious, why didn't you include that "super-superintendent's" website this time?
the reason the Board has the final vote is two-fold (as i see it). first, to fulfill their oversite function - to make sure there is no gross impropriety with the process or candidate (she's the Supt's sister-in-law with a 7th grade ducation) and second, because they must, by State law elect all teachers and administrators.
revised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment, two actually):
ONE: your attempts to smear and bash and discredit Supt. Colter are “transparent”. They are troubling and really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
revised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to smear and bash and discredit Supt. Colter are “transparent”. They are troubling and really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
ditto for 3:47 comment, when the blogosphere cooperates:
ReplyDeleterevised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment, two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. Colter are “transparent”. They are troubling and really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
an edited version of my 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment, two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. Colter lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
an edited version of my 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment, two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. Colter lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
Ugh, my question dissappeared.
ReplyDeleteJohn, so regarding teacher hires, the board also votes as in the manner of a principal/assist principal according to Policy Code: GBA/GCD ? For each teacher?
But, in regards to a super hire, then the board searches and votes without the candidate brought to them from another party?
I can't find the policy for the super hiring on the website.
Thanks,
revised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?” for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but their ROLE is to respect the process and fulfill THEIR ROLE. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its power, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
ChrisAnn - ugh, mine too. to answer your questions: yeah, every teacher is nominated by Supt. and elected by the Board, every year. at least that's what we did "back in the day". we didn't go thru EVERY teacher one-by-one. some were grouped, some individually.
ReplyDeletei'm not a Policy guy, but SB Policy states the Board selects a new Supt. the process involves a search and search committee of diverse folks (at least it should), but if ya think about it, who else could select and recommend the Supt.?
Thanks John, the policy stuff is a little out of my comfort zone. I'm just trying to make sense of it all because my experience is mostly non-profit but more business orientated.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the super, I am actually surprised that is not done by a hired third party. Might cost money, but should be less politically charged.
John, John, John...I posted Dr. Richard's website because I think that he, or any other young, energetic, school leader should be considered now that the district is in a pinch. I predict that what will likely end up happening is that they will have to go with an interim principal for the next school year. This is patchwork and it will hurt the kids. This whole mess happened on Colter's watch, he failed, he is a failure. Let us get some new blood, some fresh ideas, a reformer in there!
ReplyDeleterevised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
i will try yet again ................
ReplyDeleterevised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
OK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
revised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know who they are getting.
now that nobody cares: revised version of 3:47PM, 4/21 comment, volume down ("ours go to eleven")
ReplyDeletetwo more comments:
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. more important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were directly involved in the search. the Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote on Monday night. No responsible Board member would/could have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk about the Board vote being a rubber stamp is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one: the distinction between "what does the Board have the POWER to do?" vs. "what is the Board's Role?" For the HS principal search, the Board's role is as I articulated above (at least as I see it). Yes, the Board has the POWER to say "NO", but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming Supt. search the Board's role will be very different; that will be their search, they DO get to select, not elect.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts from a letter she sent to town/state officials, which started a separate thread here, speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote "there will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board". That's the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces its ROLE or one bent on exercising its POWER to advance its agenda, even in the face of strong community consensus to the contrary? I think that is a question the entire community should be able to debate, openly and honestly, and one that every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
revised version of 3:47PM comment from 4/21, in the interest of lowering the volume (ours go to eleven)
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces its ROLE, or one bent on exercising its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
revised version of 3:47PM comment from 4/21, in the interest of lowering the volume (ours go to eleven)
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. for the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces its ROLE, or one bent on exercising its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
revised version of 3:47 comment in the interest of lowering the volume
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. For the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose. In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. That’s the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.
seems the blog has an upset stomach, still can't get my revised comment from 3:47PM on 4/21. i;ll try this as a test.
ReplyDelete1. the district is in a pinch because of the Board, and their roots in the community. period.
2.your partisan attacks on Dr. Colter are just that.
3. please, for the rest of us, define "reform". i think many of us want continued improvement. what does reform mean?
revised version of 3:47, 4/21 comment in the interest of lowering the volume (and the rhetoric):
ReplyDeleteOK, one more comment (two actually):
ONE: your attempts to discredit Supt. C really lack credibility in light of your incessant plugs for your guy. More important, your reasoning is flawed. Only two Board members were involved in the search. The Board interviews with the two finalists immediately preceded the non-public deliberation and vote. No responsible Board member could possibly have their mind made up before then.
TWO: All this talk of the Board vote being a “rubber stamp” is obfuscation. The real issue at hand is a serious and fundamental one, the distinction between “what does the Board have the power to do?” vs. “what is the Board’s role?”. For the HS principal search, the Board’s role is as I articulated above (my view, at least). Yes the Board has the POWER to say “NO”, but it has the responsibility to respect the process and play its ROLE, providing oversight and satisfying the statutory requirement to elect. For the coming search for a new Supt., the Board role will be different; that will be their search, they DO get to choose (community take note!). In this case, they overstepped their role.
Related to this, the statement by Rep. Roberts that started a separate thread here speaks to the heart of the issue. She wrote: “There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board”. Ignoring the troubling issue of how she knows this, it raises the fundamental question: do we want a Board that understands, accepts and embraces their ROLE, or one that exercises its POWER, even in the face of strong community, administration and staff consensus to the contrary? I think that should be a question the entire community debates, openly and honestly, and one every prospective Board member should address, so voters know what they are getting.