The newspapers have printed stories, and letters-to-the-editor, quoting community members lamenting how "embarrassing" it was when the school board initially declined to vote on whether to hire high school principals to refill two of three vacancies in academy principal slots at the high school.
Apparently some people took this as a personal slap at these candidates, and at the district and community members who worked to select them.
Here's what I wonder: Did anyone clear refilling these positions with the board before rolling ahead? I never read that the board decided to refill two vs. three of the vacant positions, but I could have missed it. Did the board vote not to return to a one-principal model to oversee the high school? There has been talk in the community about whether it makes sense to have so many administrators at the high school, especially given projected budget shortfalls.
What would be embarrassing is if DO staff bulldozed ahead on hiring without consulting the board, which then balked when asked to refill these positions.
Obviously the DO knew this was a controversial issue, or they would have pushed to refill all three vacancies vs. just two. When there is a controversial issue in a functional school district, top administrators solicit board approval before moving ahead.
I have wondered whether anyone discussed filling these positions with the board prior to rolling ahead and initiating the hiring process. What would be embarrassing, though not unexpected, would be for the superintendent to again assume he knows best and again disrespect board members and hire principals with a request that the board "rubber stamp" the decision to fill two of three positions.
If boards are not supposed to thoughtfully approve hiring administrators, why is it their approval must be given before hirings are final and "legal"? Are they supposed to just "rubber stamp" these decisions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"Are they supposed to just 'rubber stamp' these decisions?"
Actually, that's not really too far off. Historically, school boards just act as a check against really bad decisions by district officials, but they don't directly make hiring decisions themselves (except for the superintendent, of course).
There was nothing in the hiring process that had given anyone pause, which means that the board should have approved the hires with a minimum of fuss. There is clear precedent for that; as well, the budget rationale was obviously false given the PIE vote.
Additionally, if board members had concerns, it would have been professional and respectful to let the DO staff know beforehand, not blindside them in the meeting. The board is allowed to communicate with the staff outside of board meetings. EVEN IF we assume that the staff had some responsibility to make a special effort to contact the board, and they didn't, that's no reason for the board not to contact the staff. It would have been an easy opportunity for the board members to take the high road.
When I got to LHS in 1997, there were at least three administrators. At some point while I was there, or possibly even before I got there, they added a fourth (the number of principals was not a concern of mine at age 15). The point is that it's been at least 11 years since LHS had less than three administrators. LT wrote a few weeks ago that to the best of their knowledge, it's been THIRTY-FIVE years since there was only one administrator.
Given that, it would be incredibly bad policy for LHS to return to two administrators.
Not only that, but it's not the board's job to decide how many principals the high school needs. It's just not - that's why education professionals are hired. They're not picking the number of administrators out of a hat, you know.
For the sake of argument, however, let's assume the board legitimately has some say. Did they express any concerns surrounding the number of administrators aside from cost before or during the meeting? Not that I know - which means that even if they were to get a say, they didn't take advantage of it.
I'm beginning to think a large swath of the anti-Robinson crowd doesn't understand the history of school boards and how they work. Claiming they should work differently is one thing, but we should at least be acknowledging the precedent present.
Here's my two cents...again
Speaking of the newspapers...who are these guys? I don't think that I've ever heard the Lebanon Express claim to be "Fair and Balanced" because if I did I would have to laugh. Dugan and Coonrod don't even try to hide the fact that they are "Pro (Robinson) Law". It's ridiculous for a local newspaper to have such bias in their news articles. Average Joe's like me have to get on these blogs to try and figure out what is really going on, and that's difficult at best. Because our local paper only tells one side. Give us UNBIASED articles! That's what we pay for. Or used to.
And by the way, once again they are singling out Debi Shimmin. An article in today's paper has part (note: only part) of an e-mail from Debi to Sherry Sprenger asking Sherry to support her from the bullying that Sherry allows to go on, and on, and on, at the board meetings. What's newsworthy about that? I understand that Debi is the only public employee on the board, so her e-mail is public property, or something to that effect, but I also have a reliable source (just like LT) that tells me that the e-mail was sent from Debi's personal computer, not her public computer. Sounds a little fishy to me.
Another thing that bugs me is the fact that they (the "Lebanon Fishwrap") keep making it a point to mention that Sherry Sprenger "does not second motions as a chair." What's the difference between seconding a motion and voting on a motion? I've heard of a chairperson not seconding motions before, but they also did not vote, unless it was to break a tie. It looks to me like our chairperson may be confused as to her duties and obgligations.
In my opinion, one of the things that is bogging us down (as a community) is choosing to argue over the every decision that is being made. When we do that, it tends to undermine our ability to look closely and honestly at what the real problems are in our district.
Having 3 administrators at the high school is the right choice. It was hard for Robinson to argue that 4 was the right number, and it would be equally hard for others to argue that fewer than 3 is the right number. Look at the ratios and compare them to other districts; 3 is right on target.
Dennis, I disagree with you, to an extent, that it is not the board's place to determine how many adminstrators are hired. The board should have acted 3 years ago when the district decided to go to four administrators at the high school. There was a large public outcry at that time, and we were in a similar budget situation where the district was advocating for teacher reductions. At that time, it would have been appropriate for the board to re-direct those resources and deny the districts request for a seperate principal for each academy.
And the Lebanon Express is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the district. Not only are their views slanted, they get their facts wrong on a regular basis.
My 2 cents -- I was horrified to pull up the Lebanon paper in search of the part of the email Debi apparently sent to Sherrie, and read it just as you reported.
In addition to my belief the Lebanon Express routinely favors the town's "good ole boys," aka Robinson and Kelley, etc. when we talk schools, I am wondering how it was the Express got this copy of the email.
My guess is Sherrie volunteered it to the reporter. The day a friend or colleague of mine shares an email of mine with the media, it's the last email I'll send them to say the least!
But it validates Debi feeling bullied by Robinson cheerleading squad now attending board meetings, and my guess is that it hits her especially hard because she gets it day and night from the pro-Robinson contingence in emails, phone calls, and personal conversations.
It must be more than she signed on for. But at this point she needs to gather her support system around her, grab ahold of her personal coping skills, and know that bullies will be more hateful and badger her longer and more diligently (with strong-arm fear-of-lawsuit tactics thrown in for spice) when it eventually works and she reverses her position in the face of it, which it seems she may have done.
My money is on that's what happened when she reversed herself on Robinson's administrative leave, and now on hiring these two administrators (and I am not saying hiring the administrators is a bad thing...it's how the hiring was done -- without support of the board apparently -- that bothers me.
Debi would be best off to accept that she won't please everyone, no matter what. And that she IS, in fact, free to vote her conscience regardless of rude hisses from the peanut gallery.
From the Lebanon Express:
Later, in an e-mail to Sprenger criticizing the chair's handling of the matter - obtained through a public records request - Shimmin described Kelley and Superintendent Jim Robinson as insubordinate.
Emphasis added.
See here for more on public records.
If the email was about school board business or, more to the point, was sent from a public email address (like a city or LCSD account), then it's subject to a public records request, which can be filed by anyone, not just reporters.
We can debate the ethics of public records requests, but they are clearly legal.
As for Sherrie's decision to not make or second motions but to vote on them, check out what the Oregon School Board Association says about board chairs:
# The chair may make motions and does not have to leave the chair to participate in discussions. OSBA recommends that the chair use this authority to make motions sparingly.
# The chair, like all board members, is expected to vote on a motion, provided there is no conflict of interest. Oregon’s Public Meetings Law requires that the vote of each board member be recorded by name in the minutes.
By that standard, Sherrie is going above and beyond the requirement. Many school board chairs do, in fact, make motions, which is why the Express notes that she doesn't. It also explains things when motions she supports fail to get a second.
Again, we can debate whether or not it's right for Sherrie to go along with the OSBA suggestions, but it's clear that she did not arrive at her decision to vote but not make motions randomly.
Is it possible you are mistaking a functional board with rubberstamping? Typically, board members meet with the CEO during the month with any issues they have concerns over. Especially if they have a question with the agenda or board packet. That's the professional way to handle it.
The jobs were posted publicly, committees put together, private and public interviews conducted which the board members were invited to. It was hardly a secrete. The time to balk was not when the canidates were in the board room.
Dennis thank you for taking the time to clarify this. You said that if the e-mail was about school board business, or was sent from a public e-mail address, then it was legal.
Help me understand, does that mean that any e-mail from one board member to another or district employee to another for that fact that contains school board business can be seized as a public record regardless of the
computer(s) used?
If so, that's okay. But why then is Debi the only person who gets their e-mail published in the local paper? Surely she is not the only person that uses e-mail to communicate.
You would have to check the relevant Oregon statutes to really know where the dividing line is between computer sent from vs. account used vs. content of email. I don't know offhand. Check this old Express article for more background, including on why (maybe) Debi gets the spotlight.
Anon @ 12:32, that email could have become a public records in a lot of ways, maybe you should just call Debi or the paper and ask. Or call Sherri if you think she gave it to the paper, but I don't think she would do that.
Debi is probably the only one who wrote something mildly interesting.
Average Joe,
Why in the world would you get your "unbiased" news from a blog, especially someone who blogs once a month and doesn't go to school board meetings? Someone who (unlike your evil fishwrap writers) doesn't even put her real name on her writing?
Sounds fishy to me.
"Not only are their views slanted, they get their facts wrong on a regular basis."
Could you maybe identify one?
Yes, IE, board approvals of hirings are almost always "rubber-stamped." Why would an insurance agent (fisher) a city clerk (Shimmin) or a politician (Sprenger) get to hire school personnel? That is not and never has been the function of a school board.
It kind of sounds like you're bullying Debi too. You get mad when she votes how you don't like, reversing Robinson's leave, hiring the administrators.
At this point she can do no right.
Does anyone know how many administrators other high schools have? How does Lebanon fit in with 2, 3, or 4?
"Average Joe's like me have to get on these blogs to try and figure out what is really going on, and that's difficult at best."
That makes a lot of sense. The person who doesn't attend meetings is probably the most knowledgable on the issues. Right... Good to know you can stick your head in the sand for a month at a time (since that's how regularly this blog is updated) and emerge monthly to feel your views are validated from an anonymous blog.
All the high schools in Corvallis and Albany have 3 administrators. Some have an additional Athletic Director that subs as an administrator as needed. High Schools of Lebanon's size typically have 3 or 4 administrators. It all depends how they classify them as in the case of the addition of a separate athletic director.
Found this on the web:
Confusion about these roles can cause problems and have a negative effect on the operation of a school district. Boards that attempt to micromanage policy implementation, circumvent the superintendent by working directly with employees, or operate as individuals rather than as a team can be both divisive and disruptive.
In high-functioning schooldistricts, roles are
clearly delineated, and the relationship between board of education members and the district
administration is clear.
Post a Comment