This may only be a partial list of reasons; please, add anything else in the comments. The deadline to file to run for the Board is May 19th. Entire Board Majority NOT vetting the Superintendent in any way, shape or form. Even the Seattle Times thought that was wrong. It was just absolute hubris and it was wrong. For the second time in just over a year , board members voted to negotiate a superintendent contract during a special meeting with no opportunity for public comment. This time, they showed an even deeper disregard for their responsibilities as public servants: Aborting a national search for a new superintendent and denying Interim Superintendent Brent Jones a chance to show students, parents and taxpayers that, indeed, he is the best person for the job. Government bodies can’t fast-forward through transparent processes just because they think they know the right answer. One other odd thing about the hiring of Brent Jones - most permanent SPS superintendent contracts ar
Comments
One, the communications topic. "District communications have been timely, substantive, concise, and well formatted." None of those things as applied to district communications have been done well. I'd give communications a C-/D+.
And no mention of the Board's unhappiness with how Raj carried out Phase II (just that staff had to work a lot on C&C)? They were very unhappy with the way he did not follow their directions on Phase II. It's been cited as the straw that broke the camel's back and yet nothing.
Did this come out of committee? Which committee?
In what context/where was it on the
District Communication piece would suggest that Boardmembers still do not get it and frankly at this point it has to be a conscious choice not to get it and to face-save.
Is there now a new Public Affairs person after the last gentlemen left and the other person was on leave - did not see it posted on vacancies a while back?
Perhaps a performance audit by Auditor Sontag is in order on the issue specifically of communication.
Does anyone know how to request such an audit?
Is the 2006-07 workplan in fact on the web now? Looked a while back and did not find it - is there a reason that committee mtg. minutes are not on the web? Frankly, find the web and public disclosure elements to be insulting at best and illegal at worst.
Might the new executive committee of Chow, Flynn and Stewart focus on these issues? One can hope.
The language in that evaluation really doesn't make any sense.