JeffCo school board decision draws questions re:transparency

Perhaps it is the outgoing super whose failure to respect the new board, in other words the will of the people she serves, that is responsible for the early departure. She did, after all, state her intention to retire, on a pension nearly as lucrative as her current salary I might add, based solely on the results of the election when a pro-reform board was elected to take the district in a different direction. Respect , after all, is a two way street - always has been. Tough to get it when you fail to give it.

hillfarmer wrote: It is obvious that Cindy and the Board are not able to work together, so her leaving was a foregone conclusion. The crazy thing is that the Board seems to think that they can manage the schools themselves - they are not hiring a new superintendent but will instead run things themselves for a while. That is clearly a recipe for disaster. These people don't know how to run a board meeting without creating a firestorm. Imagine what they are going to do when they try to manage a huge educational enterprise.

[/b]

The bolded.....looks that way to me also. It's going to be VERY interesting to watch this
implode in a spectacular display of self deception....JMO

Indeed, it is going to be fun watching the deceptions of the left implode on them. To paraphrase the late, great, Paul Harvey, here's the rest of the story . . .

What recent critical commentary on the matter did not elucidate is that the school board has long had an attorney to provide it counsel. That attorney typically has not been retained in a public session.

In fact, the superintendent hired the previous attorney at a $150,000 salary with no discussion or vote by the former board. Jeffco also spent more than $400,000 in 2013 on the law firm of Caplan and Earnest and more than $60,000 with the law office of Carrie Kollar, both hired without any public process or conversation.

and

The district’s former attorney, who reported directly to the superintendent, not the board, submitted his resignation before Thanksgiving 2013. The new board members didn’t find out about this resignation until many days later from another board official from another district.

But wait, there's still more deception from the left . . .

The board would have had about three weeks to vet legal firms if the superintendent had notified it immediately of the former attorney’s resignation. She did not. Her decision broke the “common trust” principle that all board members are informed of critical issues in a timely manner and at the same time.

Is it any wonder that the outgoing super couldn't work with this board when she decides to withhold information which they need from them? The propaganda machine of the left is working overtime to paint a poor picture of the new board. Perhaps they should work a bit harder at providing the facts and less on propaganda . . .

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_24 ... umnists%29

Oh, did I mention that the above information came from one of the outgoing board members? Perhaps Stevenson had some trouble with the previous board too? Maybe she had difficulty working with them as well even though they were approved by the public unions?

homeagain wrote:

hillfarmer wrote: It is obvious that Cindy and the Board are not able to work together, so her leaving was a foregone conclusion. The crazy thing is that the Board seems to think that they can manage the schools themselves - they are not hiring a new superintendent but will instead run things themselves for a while. That is clearly a recipe for disaster. These people don't know how to run a board meeting without creating a firestorm. Imagine what they are going to do when they try to manage a huge educational enterprise.

[/b]

The bolded.....looks that way to me also. It's going to be VERY interesting to watch this
implode in a spectacular display of self deception....JMO

OT.
Home, any chance I could persuade you to use underline instead of bold? On my screen I really have to squint to try and determine what you have bolded.

Hey we voted in who we wanted on the Board, too bad Cindy can't cooperate and negotiate. Good riddance to her too. Do we really need an outrageous expensive superintendent?

homeagain wrote:

hillfarmer wrote: It is obvious that Cindy and the Board are not able to work together, so her leaving was a foregone conclusion. The crazy thing is that the Board seems to think that they can manage the schools themselves - they are not hiring a new superintendent but will instead run things themselves for a while. That is clearly a recipe for disaster. These people don't know how to run a board meeting without creating a firestorm. Imagine what they are going to do when they try to manage a huge educational enterprise.

The bolded.....looks that way to me also. It's going to be VERY interesting to watch this
implode in a spectacular display of self deception....JMO

What I find interesting is that nothing of the structure of how the district will operate is going to change much in the chain of command. The board will be getting information directly from the same people who previously provided the information to the superintendent for a period of what, 3 or 4 months? What will be missing, a report from the superintendent that summarizes for the board what the reports from the deputy superintendents contain? Do you not think the board has been getting those reports in the past as well to review for themselves? What would you believe to be a better course of action, appoint a temporary superintendent while a permanent replacement is found who really wouldn't have much authority given the very temporary nature of their position? No, there really isn't much that is going to happen in the final months of a school year which the existing structure couldn't handle without a superintendent. The regular work of those charged with setting standards, goals, and compiling a budget will continue unabated for the next 3 months while a competent, qualified replacement is found. There is really no need to step up the timeline, the board already knew that they would be looking for a replacement for a retiring Stevenson. That she decided to try and make the board's existence more difficult by abandoning her responsibilities earlier than previously stated doesn't really alter the landscape that much, though it does expose something of her character.

PS - I underlined the relevant section so Bob could identify it with greater ease. That is the only alteration of the previous posts.

Many people are surprised to learn that the state constitution envisioned a County Superintendent of Schools that would be a four-year position filled by vote of the electorate. It may "make sense" for Boards to hire a Superintendent instead but the anticipated mechanism was for the post to hold its own power and be directly accountable to taxpayers by way of their recall ability. Constitutional text follows:

Section 6. COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS



There may be a county superintendent of schools in each county, whose term of office shall be four years, and whose duties, qualifications, and compensation shall be prescribed by law.

The provisions of section 8 of article XIV of this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, the office of county superintendent of schools may be abolished by any county if the question of the abolishment of said office is first submitted, at a general election, to a vote of the qualified electors of said county and approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon. In any county so voting in favor of such abolishment, the office of county superintendent of schools and the term of office of any incumbent in said county shall terminate on June 30 following.

HISTORY: SOURCE: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 55. L. 64: Entire section amended, p. 840.



EDITOR'S NOTE: Because there are currently no county superintendents of schools, the requirement that such person be elected was stricken in section 8 of article XIV as obsolete in senate concurrent resolution 00-005.

Adding to above post: the point I'm trying to make is that while Boards of Education members are volunteers, the Superintendent is paid. The power was supposed to be in the Superintendent to run the schools and the Boards to merely set policy. In Denver especially, Boards and Superintendents collided so they started hiring them instead -- this has placed all the power in the hands of volunteers who presumably have to support themselves doing X, in control over a Superintendent who controls the administration and therefore the input received by the Board at monthly meetings. It's a bit convoluted, and doesn't work very well.

If I had my 'druthers, I'd revise the constitution so that Board Members can be paid, then we'd be likely to see people with less political agenda and more business savvy, running for those positions. Just now, they can't afford it.