Well, it's not just me and Charlie. The PI had an editorial today about the speed of the intro/vote for the Superintendent's raise and they agreed with us. They even mentioned this blog by name. From the editorial:
"The board made an awful choice in introducing the proposal for a 10 percent increase, to $264,000 annually, and approving it the same day. It's progress of a sort that the board can be unanimous. But we can't fathom the lack of opportunity for public comment in a community where, we've been told, Seattle Public Schools' progress depends on the involvement of everyone."
And, in trying to fathom how this came about, there was this:
"Board leaders cited a need to extend the contract before Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson entered her second year. Did a software glitch push July ahead of June on board members' electronic calendars? Was expressing support for the superintendent's first year of work (impressive to our minds) so urgent that it overrode any fair period for explanations to the public, listening to citizen reaction and reflecting?"
They ended this way:
"After this botch, each and every annual review must be conducted in transparent fashion."
My only quibble is that they said:
"It will be up to this board to set, justify and measure her and the district's progress -- strictly."
Well, according to the language of the Action item, she'll be part of that decision on what to judge her on. Again, I hope the Board keeps in mind that they, in this case, are her bosses and they owe it to parents and the public to maintain some sort of management relationship with her.