The school board incumbents have a strange record of expensive flip-flops.
They supported closing schools - and refused to even consider opening any. Then, they opened a lot of schools, including several that they had just closed. The cost to the District is in the tens of millions. Add to that the damage to student learning caused by the overcrowding of schools, and the disruption in their education.
They absolutely refused to provide any management oversight whatsoever, then, suddenly they committed themselves to providing it. They go on and on about how they are zealous about it. They haven't actually started providing any yet... but they promise that they are about to do a whole lot of it some time real soon. They never offer any explanation for why they didn't provide any oversight for the first three years of their term of office. Their refusal to oversee the District has cost millions - millions pissed away on foolish projects and on consultant contracts.
They absolutely refused to perform any governance, but they do love to talk about governance. Now we're supposed to believe that they are going to be all about governance, but they didn't include policy enforcement among the duties and responsibilities that they claimed for themselves, they don't mention enforcing policy anywhere in their Governance Policy, and they delegated the job of assuring compliance with state law and board policy to the superintendent. So they go from refusing to have anything to do with governance for three years, to suddenly doing a lot of talking about governance, but not actually providing any governance. Their refusal to enforce compliance with laws and policies has cost millions in legal claims, in federal funds, and in state money.
The Board has gone from not questioning anything about the cost of central office staff to pretending to ask about the cost of central office staff. The new version isn't any different from the old version - they still accept the report of drastic cuts from the superintendent without any effort to confirm it. Of course, they now acknowledge that the reports from previous years were false. Their refusal to read the budget cost the District millions in wasted salaries.
The Board has gone from obsequious devotion to Dr. Goodloe-Johnson (extending her contract the day after the disastrous audit report from the state auditor's office) to pretending that they were her stern bosses. Their refusal to supervise finished with their refusal to fire her for cause. As a result it cost the District about $500,000.
In their campaigns for re-election the Board incumbents are trying to give us whiplash. Peter Maier of 2011 totally disagrees with Peter Maier of a year ago, but he doesn't seem to notice the change. Honestly, neither do I. I'm looking at what he does instead of what he says, and they are the same guy.