Monday, December 01, 2014

Board defers Superintendent vote by a week

The agenda for the regular legislative Board meeting on December 3 has been amended. The scheduled vote on the motion to offer an extended contract to Dr. Nyland has been changed from December 3 to a Special Board meeting on December 10. The special meeting is already on the Board Calendar and other scheduled Board activities for that day have been re-scheduled. Immediate action is no longer in the best interests of the District.

I can only presume that Board President Peaslee acted unilaterally when scheduling the special meeting and re-scheduling the other activities. Board Policy 1400 gives her that authority: "Special meetings may be called by the President or on a petition of a majority of the Board members."

Moving the vote to December 10 still allows only half of the usual amount of time between introduction and action on a motion. The Board is meeting on December 17th as well, the usual two week gap between introduction and action, but President Peaslee did not choose that day for the vote. She chose to allow only a one week gap.

8 comments:

Melissa Westbrook said...

This is sop that Peaslee is throwing out there to try to deflect from the issues.

I suspect it won't work.

And why one week and not two?

Why NOT have a search?

I note that the Board received an e-mail from a former Board member who cited someone in Seattle who would be a fine candidate. As well, I know that Carol Simmons, another educator and long-time activist, knows of yet another good candidate.

It can be done.

Kate said...

It seems to me that the critical point is that the Board needs to proceed with a search. Period. Delaying a misguided vote by a week doesn't resolve the problem.

The Board has badly bungled this process. It's crucial that they get it back on course. I hope that the board is being inundated with e-mails to this effect.

Anonymous said...

Heard you on KUOW this morning, Melissa, during their short piece on this issue. Was driving in the car but I think I heard that Nyland also stated in that piece that Seattle had five months to get to know him as a candidate and that that is more time than most anyone ever gets to see if someone is the right fit. Seems like Nyland was not interested in a search either....

-Fedmomof2

Anonymous said...

IMHO Nyland kills the case for a quickie hire by his own words to the effect 'I might stay 2-3 years.'

That's no better than what we'd get on the open market. He doesn't appear to be more stellar than anyone else in the past decade (minus Goodloe-Johnson) so what's the rush and why not a search?

I'm also pretty disappointed in the board pushing the hire proposition forward with no notice to us. I had expected more from the current board majority. Feeling disillusioned by the very ones who were supposed to be the good guys.

SavvyVoter

Oy said...

Kate Martin is correct.

Anonymous said...

Yes, is a committment to stay for two years enough, if selected, and SPS went through the proper community engagement process?

-Fedmomof2

Melissa Westbrook said...

If the Board has a search, where finalists are named and there's a couple of community meet and greets (maybe with a press conference thrown in there)and, at the end, Nyland rises to the top, fine by me.

I said this about Enfield.

By I want a vetting process that is clear and transparent. No anointing anyone.

Charlie Mas said...

You know what this reminds me of?

The current district practice of appointing an interim principal at a school without any community engagement and then, in the middle of the school year making that appointment permanent without any community engagement.