Board may hire firm to help with ORHS principal search
By RONI REINO
rreino@fosters.com
Thursday, April 28, 2011
DURHAM — More than 400 people filled the Oyster River High School auditorium Wednesday night to hear School Board members suggest hiring a firm to help continue the search for a new principal and pushing for greater involvement in the hiring process.
During the meeting, members began talking publicly about how the district will move forward after board members rejected a new high school principal nomination earlier this month. Board members have heard feedback from community members, students and staff since the decision.
An e-mail dated April 20 from Board Chair Henry Brackett and Vice Chair Ann Wright said the board would ensure a principal would be in place for the 2011/2012 school year. Current principal Laura Rogers will be leaving at the end of the year.
The 15 members of the high school principal search committee took two months to sift through 44 applications, narrowing the field down to two final candidates. Superintendent Howard Colter nominated one candidate, but board members voted 4-3 against the nomination, with members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn voting in the majority.
Chair Henry Brackett and members Krista Butts and Anne Wright supported Colter's nomination.
On Wednesday, board member Megan Turnbull offered a motion to create a "core committee," made up of three School Board members and Superintendent Howard Colter, that would designate a new search committee and form criteria for principal candidates. Discussions also presented the idea of hiring a consultant to join the group provide direction for the search committee who would help this group.
"It does not seem right to me that the board is only called in to nominate and then we vote at the end of the process," Brackett said. "I would like to see more involvement with the board in making the decision."
Turnbull spoke up saying she was in favor of creating a committee that represented everyone needed, but said she was worried there was no timeline presented and the next school year was quickly presenting itself.
The motion passed 4-2, members Lane, Turnbull, Brackett, O'Quinn and Kach in favor and Butts and Wright opposed.
Brackett then asked for board member nominations for the core committee. Members Wright, Turnbull and Lane originally asked to be placed on the committee, but Wright shortly afterward withdrew. Brackett then nominated himself for the third position.
The committee member vote passed unanimously.
Kach said he would hope the core committee be selected by the School Board, but ultimately, the board said it would be Colter's committee.
Following the vote, about 50 community members and students spoke out, many saying they felt disrespected by the School Board and others saying those speaking out were embarrassing the community — some directing their comments toward the recent student walkout.
One students said he searched online the potential cost of hiring a consultant and said the average cost he found was about $15,000. The board has not provided official information about costs for a consultant.
When senior class President Ethan Hotchkiss spoke, he asked each student present to stand, which included School Board student representative Cody Jacobsen. He asked the School Board to reconsider its decision for the principal nomination and to allow a student to join the core committee.
Luci Gardner said she supported the School Board. The Durham resident said she hoped the School Board would take the time to find the proper candidate and reminded those present they had been voted into their position to represent the district.
"I didn't vote for them to rubber stamp a candidate," she said.
Following the more than an hour public comment session, some board members spoke up, saying they are looking forward to continuing speaking with the community on the district's future and encouraged continued letters from the community.
"I hope we focus on better and stronger communications," Wright said.
However, student representative Cody Jacobsen said he wished the School Board had not moved the meeting's vote about the future of the principal search before the public comment.
"I think you should have heard the community before you made your decision," he said.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110428/GJNEWS_01/704289701
Let's take a close look at this board's latest irrational decision. I have tried to keep an even keel when posting, but the blatant hypocrisy of the latest decision is glaring.
ReplyDeleteThe previous hiring committee, as selected by the school board - prior to the board's decision that they had no faith in the committee that they themselves appointed. There were 3 board members on that committee, but I keep hearing that the board wasn't represented. Now, this new proposal of the board has how many? Three board members.
The article states, "On Wednesday, board member Megan Turnbull offered a motion to create a "core committee," made up of three School Board members and Superintendent Howard Colter, that would designate a new search committee."
How, exactly, is this different from the group of 15 teachers, community members, school board members and students who initially did this EXACT SAME JOB!?!?!
Then, this board, which cited economic reasons for not going with the recommendation brought forth by search committee, voted to create YET ANOTHER search committee AND spend 10-15,000 to hire a consultant.
This shows that the board has no confidence in their own appointments to the committee or that they simply didn't like the outcome. The board is saying, "We discount the research and opinions of this committee, we want someone else, so we're going to appoint our own committee, to get what/who we want."
This makes no sense. Why bother with the committee if the decision is already made? Why spend another 10-15,000 on a consultant if they have already made their decision? This is a clear effort to exert their authority and continue to micro-manage. The reason why the board makes the final decision, based on the recommendation of a committee, (which I remind you again, holds 3 board members) is because the the board should be working to serve both the students and the taxpayers.
People keep coming up with the arguement, "We're not going to rubber stamp..." The phrase "rubber stamp" implies that there was no thought that went into the process. That phrase is so out of line. It discounts the process, the time the committe put in, and the people themselves who served on the selection committee.
The board does not want a democracy as they are trying to make people believe. The board wants to rule with an iron fist, and take no input from anybody, unless those people agree with them.
Those who are on the opposite opinion, however, and even those on the fence, can see through this. The board is going to do what they want, and those who disagree be damned.
They didn't even allow a dialogue prior to the decision. It took a 16 year old kid to point out that flaw in procedure. Really. A 16 year old kid with more ethical and moral awareness than an entire board of adults. They COMPLETELY ignored the opposing sentiment - once again - unless it was what they wanted to hear. It is simply amazing what a board with an agenda can do when unchecked.
Good luck to the people of the Oyster River School district until these folks get voted out. I feel truly awful for the kids and teachers there. They are the ones who will suffer, unless the board runs them out of town like they have Mrs. Rogers and Mr. Colter.
This is what I said last night, and I still stand by it today:
ReplyDeleteApril 27, 2011
Dear Members of the Oyster River School Board, Administrators, Teachers, Students, and Community Members:
In the past few weeks, I have been greatly disturbed by a number of events. I am aware that the Board made a decision which some people agreed with and others did not. Regardless of each individual’s or even each group’s opinion, the actions that have followed have been quite unsettling. Some people have chosen to call one another names; others have chosen to make indirect attacks at one side or another through anonymous messages or through published letters to the editor of Fosters Daily Democrat.
In each case, the one element that makes us all a community has been lost: our commitment to working together to achieve a unilateral goal. Obviously each person involved believes his or her opinion is the best way to proceed. Obviously we are a school system in a crisis. We have forgotten how to not only talk, but also to listen to one another civilly and respectfully.
A decision has been made by the board. The question now is not whether or not to revisit that decision, nor whether to attack board members on either side of the decision, nor to challenge our Superintendent of Schools. It is not a question of whether our students and teachers deserve a principal. The key question is how do we move forward in a way that respects all parties and that shows what the Oyster River community is really all about: a commitment to providing our children with the best education possible.
Right now, I call upon everyone in the room, everyone at home, everyone reading Blog posts, everyone writing letters, everyone in the school system, and everyone in our community to return to a place of civility.
Please join me in supporting everyone in our community with dignity and respect and let us continue to be the absolute best we can be.
Sincerely,
Loren Selig, community member, parent of a Kindergartener
Durham