Thank you for your inquiry and for the maturity with which you approach the question. It shows that you treat community concerns and your vote with the seriousness they deserve. I will respond from my own experiences and with the resources our group has assembled.
First, let me assure you we are not out to ruin a reputation. I cannot find fault with Susan Stoops' value as a person, friend or neighbor. We do not attack her character or pesonality. Our grievance is with the mis-management of the school district. We have run out of patience with the school board's inability or unwillingness to provide effective oversight on its executive, Superintendent Joseph Hunter; and its unwillingness to listen to community voices of concern regarding Hunter or regarding its own decisions.
I am a novice to local politics. I began following Central School District issues last September when I ran headlong into unethical and wasteful conduct in the district. My concern was money. When I brought that issue to the forefront, I found that the district was full of unhappy teachers and that there were others in the community with serious concerns about the district leadership. This group has now become the executive committee of Citizens for 13J Excellence. You can read brief biographical statements here.
Some of our best teachers are looking to get out of the district. The teachers submitted an overwhelming vote of no confidence on district leadership two years ago, and were officially ignored, but publicly accused of falsifying the count. The teachers worked half a year with no contract while the superintendent's contrtact is never shorter than 2 years - it is a three-year contract updated annually. His contract continues to provide more and more generous cash compensation while teachers are being cut and class-sizes increased.
No expense was spared on the new (and, I admit, beautiful) high school renovation, including low-return investments such as solar panels. The theater has every frill imaginable for a high school - but not all of it is working. When parts of the project didn't quite fit into the 48-million dollar bond, monies from the general fund - in the amount that could have paid four teachers for a year, were used. Small loans were taken to augment the project. This was during a recession when construction bids were unusually low.
Worst of all, in the finishing and fixtures budgeet area (2 million-ish), the project seems to be missing many receipts! There is no proof of competitive bidding, and many purchases were made far ABOVE PUBLISHED catalog prices. And when the community clamors for an audit of the expenses, the school board has balked at the cost. We can afford to increase the superintendent's compensation but we can't afford the proper audit costing less than 1/1000th of the bond expenditures? Seeming fishy, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the superintendent's conduct toward his teachers and staff is frequently the subject of formal and informal complaint. The district does not provide a working environment where employees are respected; instead, it is managed strongly from the top down. Another superintendent has been brought in as a buffer between Hunter and some employees who have lodged a complaint. It was that serious, but not serious enough to put him on paid administrative leave?
And what does the school board do with these formal complaints? Until recently, nothing. But it's HOW they do nothing that leads us back to Susan Stoops. There are three members of the board who will advance the concerns voiced by teachers and public. They are Kathy Zehner, Mary Shellenbarger and Paul Evans. There are three (four until one resigned leaving an open position) who consistently praise the superintendent and disregard criticism of him. Chief among those who sees it the superintendent's way is Susan Stoops. And as chairperson she has the biggest megaphone. By policy she controls the communication from othe board to the district. By preference, she has also chosen to control the communication from the district to the board, keeping some board members in the dark on some issues. She actually advanced a policy prohibiting school board members from having discussions with the public on any matter touching the schools except within the school board meeting.
I cannot speak to her motives for this behavior. In her heart of hearts she probably believes that what she and Hunter are doing are right and that the critical voices are wrong. I belive this is a dangerous mindset for a leader, however virtuous the intention. As the governing body of the school district, the school board should be providing skeptical oversight of the superintendent, regardless his popularity or reputation.
Like most school districts in the nation today, our school district faces some really difficult problems. There just isn't enough tax revenue coming in to run the schools the way they have been. In the face of this kind of challenge it is unfortunate that we are arguing about ethics and oversight. But we certainly won't resolve the coming difficult issues with a divided school board and an unethical superintendent.
Bottom line: the district is being mismanaged. The school board is the designated entity that has power to fix the problem, and they have not done anything about it. The school board reports to us, the community, and we are blessed as Americans and Oregonians to have the priveledge of voting and the priveledge of recalling our elected officials. We made a mistake and now we should fix it.
No comments:
Post a Comment