Upgraded comment on the Sansom issue

I am posting this comment on the front page (as it were), since I think it makes some good points. I can't ask permission since the commenter is anonymous:

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.