Tuesday, June 17, 2008

A plethora of news

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I felt like I should at least note the fact that Moody has five stories about the LCSD online that have appeared since the school board meeting last night. That's practically a marathon.

Superintendent files complaint against director

Update: Link fixed.

I expected this one to be filed by Paul Dakopolos, though if I understand the story right, the content of the complaint is what I predicted: That Jackson, as an attorney, can't cut other attorneys out of the process. What remains to be seen is what Jackson alludes to in the story: Because Jackson claims he was not acting as an attorney when he and Wineteer worked out the amendments, does the rule apply?

Also interesting was the discussion between Alexander and Robinson about Robinson's failure to inform the board about the complaint. I don't particularly like the "preserving privacy" argument, though it might actually be true.

Lebanon group drops 1 of 3 recall petitions

This just confirms what I was told last night. However, I am still left with the question of why.... and the fact that this almost certainly is going to make CARES look bad, which is going to hurt their other recall efforts.

Board overturns principal recommendation

Umm.... yeah. Based on media reports, I have to agree with the board. Unless there is some piece of evidence Robinson and Kelley are hiding (which would not be good), they seemed way too eager to get rid of Sansom given the situation.

Old contract for Sand Ridge extended

Heh. Another consequence of the FUBARed process the LCSD Board used. Now someone has to fix the mess.

Welding teacher quits

I will definitely return to this last one later. There's a lot going on there.


Anonymous said...

The first link doesn't work- I better go search the online paper for that.
Sansom is staying--so will they retain both the principal and assistant principal? One of the obvious cost cutting suggestions at one of the meetings I attended was to cut the assistant principal position over there. Because of the "issues" with both Sansom and Yates, they were not able to do that at the time. Hamilton Creek functions with only a principal and is very close in number of students.
Curious to hear what your thoughts are on Callison. I have never worked with him nor have I been in a classroom while he is teaching, but many of the young men I know who have had him admire him greatly. In my opinion-it's another huge loss for us.

Anonymous said...

Board overturns principal recommendation
Umm.... yeah. Based on media reports, I have to agree with the board. Unless there is some piece of evidence Robinson and Kelley are hiding (which would not be good), they seemed way too eager to get rid of Sansom given the situation.

The District Administration wanted to hold Ed S. more accountable so they asked for a non-renew. This was not a vendetta against Ed S.
As Sherrie S. (who actually read the materials the Board requested from the Admin) pointed out--there were things dating back to the original reviews that showed increasing levels of concern.
Communication; Ed's vision (not Jim R.'s vision as Rick A. was confused on) not being clear and Building-wide; financial and other over-sight of his staff being sub-par (which gave occasion to the embezzlement under his watch); lack of clear improvement in these areas; etc.
Since it was obvious that the Board was going to dismiss the non-renew request, the Superintendent suggested a 1-year contract instead of the 3-year in order to continue addressing these issues (which was the original intent).
Mr. "Take-it-to-the-Mat" (Rick A.) immediately made a motion (failed) to give a 3-year contract. Talk about in-your-face disrespectful behavior and attitude. If he is like that in public imagine what he is like in private. Wow!
Amazingly, no one has mentioned how this situation is EXACTLY LIKE what Jim R. faced with his evaluation by this very same Board majority!
Their evaluation of Jim R. takes the Blue Ribbon for being the most vague, inconsistent, subjective evaluation.
They did to him (and worse because they do have a vendetta against him and want him gone--not to improve) EXACTLY THE SAME THING as they cried "Foul!" of the Admin doing to Ed S.
What a complete disconnect they have between their own behavior and what they say is why they want Jim R. gone.
Jim R. should hire Ed S.'s lawyer (who nailed the problem of the subjective evaluation on the head at the last Board meeting) and give the Board a taste of their own medicine.

Anonymous said...

...Because Jackson claims he was not acting as an attorney when he and Wineteer worked out the amendments...
Of course Jay J. was acting as an attorney. Josh W. himself admitted that he couldn't have drafted a contract without Jay J.'s legal knowledge.
They were both acting illegally by drafting public business privately--outside of Board sessions WITHOUT Board-voted authority.
Jim R. however was doing his duty and was well within his legal rights as the Superintendent to file a complaint. It would have been gross negligence on his part not to have filed one.

Anonymous said...

Old contract for Sand Ridge extended...
The term "Due Diligence" came up several times in regards to the SR contract. In reference to the obligation of the School Board to practice it.
It means:
The degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence and reason (attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment required for the protection of own interests as well as the interests of others) would exercise under given circumstances.
Standard of care or legal duty required by one's position.
Negligence is the failure to use due diligence or care."

That is the crux of the matter with the current Board majority. They are balking at exercising Due Diligence, especially when it comes to SR.
When your District Lawyer says he would choose to be fired before he would sign a contract (as presented by Jay.J. and the Trio's motion last month) because it would not be exercising Due Diligence we'd better wake up and take note.

Why did the School Board majority--without explanation--turn their backs on yet another committee's findings and throw out the RFP responses for a new District Law Firm passing a motion that they will want another one sent out before the end of the year?
I have heard those are quiet expensive. During times of cut-backs I can't understand how they can justify such extravagance.
Frankly, they didn't.
They just said they weren't happy with the results and wanted to do it again--with our money.

Anonymous said...

Too funny. Here's bits and pieces of the following article from 2005.


Alexander's behavior at the school resembles that of a "maverick school board member whose focus is only on their own agenda," Sansom said.
On June 14, Sansom asked Alexander to leave the building because of the need for teachers to keep students focused in the final days of the school year. Alexander became argumentative, he said, but left after Sansom said he would call police to remove him, if necessary.

A few days later Alexander told Mitchell he'd filed a complaint against Sansom with the Teacher's Standards and Practices Commission, but he wouldn't file one against Mitchell, who was polite to him.

Mitchell also addressed the board with concerns about Alexander, saying his behavior undermines the integrity of the district and the morale of staff and that Alexander threatens people and engages in bullying and character assassination.

Sansom said he first raised the issue of Alexander's behavior when visiting the school in November 2003. At the time, Sansom said, Alexander told him his primary purpose on the board was to "get rid of [Superintendent] Jim Robinson and [Assistant Superintendent] Steve Williams."

"I am now left with the impression that I too am on his hit list of people he wants to fire," Sansom said.

Anonymous said...

Wow. That 2005 article is eerily revealing.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.