Shimmin's email -- I stand corrected by Dennis as I missed the sentence in Coonrod's story about his obtaining the e-mail through a public records request. And if it's true, as reported by LT, that Sherry forwarded the e-mail to Kelley, when the email concerned a complaint about Kelley from one board to another, then Sherry's action was despicable.
If a colleague or friend sent you an e-mail complaining about a person who is supposed to answer to your authority, would you forward it on to that person without the consent of the sender? This is divisive and something that just does not happen among mature adults. It might happen if an employee complained to their boss about another employee, though even then it wouldn't be great policy. Is that how Sherrie sees herself as board chair? The boss of other board members? This shows a serious lack of judgment by Sherrie, in my opinion.
How many LHS administrators-- I personally support having at least three administrators at the high school. My point was that it was a controversial issue, and DO staff knew that but disrespected the community and board members by not seeking board approval before starting the hiring process.
And yes, the hiring process was not hidden and board members could have initiated an objection. But relationships are so poor between the DO staff and the majority of our school board, that this was unlikely to happen.
Again, nothing will change until the disrespectors (Robinson and Kelley, and there may be others there as well) leave this district.
Board's role-- I agree that the role of a school board is not to micro-manage district operations. When a board can hire a superintendent who listens and does not disrespect board members or the community, the board needs to back away and let this superintendent run the district according to board-approved policies. But at this point, the majority of board members don't appear to trust that the DO staff has the best interest of this community at heart.
Rubber-stamping hiring decisions -- Interesting point, Dennis, that board members ARE supposed to rubber-stamp hiring decisions by the superintendent. I am wondering, if this is the case, why it's legally require that school boards approve hirings? If the role is simply to rubber-stamp, it would seem the board would not be involved in the process at all.
Since it is apparently the role of the board to vote on hiring decisions, it certainly is implied that there is an over-seeing role for the process and candidates selected. If not, why would the board be required to approve all hirings?
Bullying Debi -- I never expected Debi ever to vote against DO positions, so I have been impressed she appears to make up her own mind. I don't see her as among the rubber-stampers when she does agree with a district position, but when she changes her mind radically between board meetings, I do think it's likely she was bullied into changing her mind by the Robinson supporters.
Lebanon-Express -- I think Larry Coonrod does some of the best reporting I've seem in the Express, and often writes a more balanced story than appears in the D-H. Overall, in the many years I've lived here, the Lebanon paper has seemed to be a mouthpiece for power people in the community, whoever they are at the time. In other words: Muckrackers they aren't. But it may need to be that way for their survival...you tick off your advertisers and you might be out of business. So boosterism may be a sad reality for any small local newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
IE, I think you raise an interesting point re: the Lebanon Express. I'm not terribly inclined to disagree. Also: It's not just advertisers. Tick off your sources, and they stop talking. It's exacerbated in a small town, as there are a very limited number of sources.
Also, I believe I said the board should routinely approve hirings except in cases where the process or decision was egregiously bad. If I didn't, consider it said. The board is a check of last resort. Certainly in the case of the two administrators, the process and decision seemed solid. Preventing the hiring because the board potentially disagreed with the *number* of administrators was not the solution, as it punished the people being hired and failed to address the perceived problem.
Dennis -- I don't see not voting on hiring them as "punishing" the candidates. To me it seemed the board was not ready to commit to refilling the positions...it indicated the DO staff had missed a step in getting the board "on board" before moving ahead with hiring.
And what possible reason could the board have for not wanting to commit to refilling the positions?
Either a) they "wanted to know more about the budget," which is either not true or a sign of massive incompetence given the PIE vote; or b) they were seriously considering dropping from 4 to 2 or less administrators at LHS, without asking the DO staff if that was a good idea; or c) they had a reason that they have yet to reveal in public.
Why would the DO staff feel the need to make a special effort to get the board on board for a routine staff replacement? And doesn't the board have an obligation to raise the "we're not ready yet" objection before the hiring process has finished (or even started), rather than inform the DO staff at the last second?
"it indicated the DO staff had missed a step in getting the board "on board" before moving ahead with hiring"
Great comment IE. If you have done your prep work, by the time you step in front of the board there should be no big surprises. The staff at the DO appears to do a great job of working within their circle (DO and building administrators), but have real problems working outside of it. I don't see this changing at all, and that is why I believe that Robinson has to go.
Re the board and hiring: if the process was open and something went wrong, then it should have never come to a vote -- an objection should have been raised before that point, and delayed if necessary. If something went wrong, then the board members should have specified why exactly they were holding up hiring. Or so I think ,but there is gray area in things like this, though it is usually politic to fix things outside of a vote situation. What step did the DO miss, exactly? Rick and Debi weren't there to specify (ahem), and I don't think Josh did either even though he did show up.
Re rubber stamping: some might say that Debi is a rubber stamper, not exactly making up her own mind, just a follower one camp instead of the other.
Um,IE?
How do you feel about two elected public officials discussing a public employee between each other without involving the employee or the public?
Just wondering...
It's called breaking the open public meetings law.
"It's called breaking the open public meetings law."
If the board was comprised of 3 members then you would be correct. Lebanon's is comprised of 5, so no laws are broke when 2 of them meet. I have seen Chris and Sherrie having breakfast together, are they lawbreakers also?
If there is not a quorum of board members involved in a discussion (3in this case) there is no violation of the public meeting law. If you don't believe me, call the District Attorney.
Do you really think our justice system is so weak that it would allow the law to be evaded so easily?
The law is to protect "we the people" from public officials meeting without the public present and deliberating over a decision that effects the public. Yes, they can meet for lunch and discuss the baseball game. No, they cannot discuss how to get rid of the coach. Board member 1 also cannot meet with John Doe with the intentions of John Doe telling board member 2 how to get rid of the coach. They can't do it through private email, private phone calls, they can't do it in private because we have a right to know what they're doing and saying. The purpose of the law is to keep everything transparent.
Oh, come on! You think Sherrie and Chris meet to discuss the weather! Gimme a break! Did they used to meet for for breakfast BEFORE they were both board members? I doubt it!
Post a Comment