We held a regular board meeting on May 23rd. You can view the meetinghere (on YouTube).
Hiring Issue
At the meeting, the board voted 4-3 (two nays and one abstention) to hire someone to fill the Executive Director of Elementary and Early Childhood Education position. To say that this hire raises serious questions would be an understatement. It has become clear that the administration did not follow its usual process and ignored legitimate questions. Unfortunately, this is not the first time. Indeed, this administration has created the appearance that it fills positions with people who are selected based on their connections to certain district folks rather than their experience or leadership capabilities.
First, the initial interview committee did not recommend this person for hire. The second interview committee, which consisted of Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Veasey, and Dr. Long, ignored that recommendation and made a different recommendation to the board. At the board meeting, the superintendent relegated the first interview committee to nothing more than a “screening committee” that only asks questions about background education and experience. This is not an accurate reflection of this committee’s work. This committee’s questions are substantive, and the administration shouldn’t so easily disregard its recommendation.
One of the concerns is that the candidate recommended by the superintendent has only seven months of district administration experience and only seven months of experience in this district. Initially, the superintendent misrepresented the candidate’s district administration experience and suggested that she did have more experience in other states. However, an hour after this misrepresentation, the superintendent had to acknowledge that she only had seven months of experience. I am concerned that the superintendent tried to mislead the board. But I am even more concerned that the board allows this to happen. Ultimately, the buck stops with us.
There are other issues regarding this hire. For example, the superintendent has represented that this person’s direct supervisor recommended her for the position. I do not believe this to be accurate, and the superintendent has not been forthcoming with my requests for some evidence that this did occur. Moreover, when the superintendent was questioned about why he was recommending someone against the interview panel’s wishes and with so little experience, he indicated that the candidate had a history of turning around struggling schools as a principal. I have requested more specificity about this claim. What is this based on? What data or other information was relied upon to draw this conclusion? The last school report card from this candidate’s school, when she was principal, is an F. I do not believe school report cards tell the whole story of any one school, not even close, and they are problematic in lots of ways. But given this report card, I would expect that the superintendent would have other information to share. So far, he has refused to do so. How can board members justify the superintendent’s refusal to provide information like this?
The responsibility lies with the board. We tie ourselves in knots trying to justify the unjustifiable and ignore clear signs of problems. And now I worry that we are going to lose some incredible folks. I think this hire demonstrates why the board’s failure to conduct real oversight matters. The board has created this environment in which the superintendent can say anything — whether it’s accurate or not, whether it actually makes sense or not — and it will go unchallenged. I do not believe that’s how we best serve our teachers and staff or the students whom we place in their care.