I am still shaking my head after hearing about last week's Board of Education meeting. How could anyone defend the special education report? It restated the obvious. There is favoritism-- look at the services connected families get and look at how the rest of us have to fight for everything. The report proved that favoritism exists. You know how? Because it only interviewed 8 hand-seleted families and reviewed only about 20 student IEPs.
Lets talk about the Superintendent search...I've heard that there is little to no participation from parents or the community. Do people care any more? Is there more then we is being said? Perhaps Tony is the new Super and we just don't know of it..yet
I'm hearing that staff are preferring to fill out the survey due to fear of repercussions from the current leadership and parents like the convenience of the survey. Either way, it is just a sampling. Then again, it could just be the snow that kept all administrators away from their session or maybe the survey is easier. In this district, who ever really knows!
My parent perspective- I figured the loudmouths would be at the first sessions. I don't have time to waste hearing about national reading statistics. Ancient history about how great Ralph Sloan was bores me too. And don't get me started about scapegoatinng (collective bargaining is the law even if we don't like it so get over it). I will be a future session. Like lots of parents my agenda is what's best for my kids.
Cheerleaders on one side, haters on the other side. With a few prayers, there will be enough of us in the middle just looking for a fair and open process.
How much hatred can there be in one city? I keep waiting for some Daddona hater to explain what he's doing wrong as interim. I'd also like to know why the Marks fan club thinks that they have to knock down Daddona to make Marks look like she knew what she was doing.
There is something wrong with being a Daddona cheerleader? The man is doing an outstanding job! Why do some people have blinders on? Why are there people out to crucify him? It makes zero sense to me.
If Daddona is doing an outstanding job - then let him go through the process as anyone else. He is fair game to all. If all are happy with what he is doing - then he has no worries, he will be the next Superintendent. Just as much as there are haters for Marks, there will be for Mr. Daddona. And if Daddona does not get the job, the new one will be hated too!
I care about due process - he, as any other candidate, has the opportunity to apply and go through the process. All should be done in a fair and appropriate manner - all deserve the chance. I plan to attend the Norwalk High session but I've heard that there's been no participation from the parents at other sessions. I'm sure that the weather played some part but I've seen parents at other events..so not sure why not at these sessions. hmmmmm.
Check out the Board of Ed's agenda for Tuesday's meeting. They are going into Executive Session to discuss a Board member. Hmmm . . . wonder who that could be?
I was not alone in asking for the executive session to discuss a member's actions. I posted my reasons on Twitter (@stevecolarossi) and in an email to each of my colleagues. In addition, I am asking that we reject additions to meeting minutes which are an attempt by the same BoE member to distort the meeting record. Roberts Rules (which the Norwalk BOE follows) is clear that minutes do not contain speeches by members- and, even if they did, a member could not provide her own concocted version of statements that may have been made throughout a meeting and re-write it as if it were a single speech. Plus, we just clarified our own policy about meeting minutes to prevent this exact disingenuous conduct (it was nearly unanimously approved). To those of you who would suggest that the Board of Education has far greater issues with which to contend, I would offer that you should be making that point to the Board member who has habitually expended her colleagues’ time and taxpayer funds not to advance educational objectives but to enshrine her colloquies.
Thanks for answering the question I had as I read your post. I appreciate frustration with a co-worker. But I am curious if there has been any attempt to privately speak with this one member?
Mr. Colorossi has a conflict of interest. He works at the behest of Mr Mellion and Mr Ditrio. Mr Mellion has been absolutely silent since Marks left. Mr Ditrio slightly more honest and passionate. Nonetheless, this exercise that is being lead by Mr. Colorossi is an attempt to smear a fellow board member for simply asking questions. Most of the board asks nothing during presentations, which is unfortunate. Strangely enough, Mr Colorossi had Lots to say when Dr Marks was around as he was directed by Mellion to make her life miserable. It's no secret that the unions would like to see the interim made permanent and things to remain as is until Mellion decides to retire. The reality is that the city is running out of money and Norwalk needs to raise the bar on its leadership. Ms. Haynie may not be as eloquent as Mr Colorossi, but her interests are those of the children and taxpayers. I fear Mr Colorossi is not as straightforward as his wife is also a teacher. That alone is not a problem, but I suspect Mr Colorossi and Ms Haynie come at board issues from different perspectives. If Ms Haynie was the only problem on the Board of Ed, why is Mr Colorossi no longer Finance Chair?
This Board member who 'simply asks questions' is on a hate campaign to eliminate the interim. She is NOT just simply asking questions! What rock have you been hiding under? She absolutely has an agenda and that agenda is now affecting the school system in a very negative way. Mr. Colorossi is being transparent and honest. He comes at board issues to help the classroom and the kids. She (Haynie) comes at board issues to fulfill her hate agenda. That's the truth.
Thank you, 6:58 for recognizing the need to hold all Board of Education to the same standard. As for the attempt at a political hatchet job by the earlier poster, the only thing that surprises me is how long that group took to fire their first shot. The 5:15 AM post is no exception as it contains the usual tirade that I am beholden to unions which neither contribute to political campaigns nor offer their members as campaign volunteers, that because my wife is an educator I must have a "conflict of interest" if I am actually advocating for education as a member of the Board of -- wait for it-- EDUCATION. I do admit that I always marvel when that clique refuses to give any concrete examples of my duplicity- I guess my record of achievement rewriting policies and exposing budgetary largesse doesn't make for good copy for them. The problem for them is that the facts speak much more loudly than their insults and obfuscation.
Over the next few posts, I will respond to these insults for a simple reason- even though they are unfounded, bullies need to be shown that their antics are never acceptable.
First, the initial email by Ms. Haynie that prompted my request for review by the Board was one in which she accused the interim superintendent of endangering her and her family's safety because he provided to all BoE members information which she had requested. Mr. Daddona was following a procedure which all Board members agreed was to be implemented. The information regarded something that was not even presently before the BoE for action. The financial information which was requested could have some non-immediate impact on one particular group of employees. And, as a result, Ms. Haynie suggested that some past and present members of this employee group might be prone to do her harm if they learned of it. I found those allegations deeply offensive as similar charges were never leveled at other collective bargaining groups when Ms. Haynie was proposing deep cuts in their ranks.
Secondly, the Anonymous poster claims that I somehow "made Dr. Marks' life miserable". That was never my goal- I did insist that she, like every administrator, be held accountable for knowing the parameters of the position held and for the acts and omissions committed. I did take exception with some glaring administrative lapses and budgetary mismanagement that were Dr. Marks' responsibility. Each time money was spent in a manner not approved in the budget, or each time someone was overpaid or improperly hired, I believed that we were wasting money that should be spent in the classroom. Let me give you some concrete examples-- (i) her initial hiring of a consultant despite no budgetary authority for that hire, (ii) her providing interim raises and promotions to two employees in December of 2010 which were never disclosed to the BoE or the public, (iii) her repeated hiring of personnel without BoE approval (as required by charter and BoE policy), (iv) her overpaying certain administrative employees even after being advised of the errors, (v) her decisions in the last budget to unfairly target critical elementary school services, (vi) her hiring more than a dozen teaches at the start of the 2011-12 school year that exceeded budget authority and (vii) her refusal to timely provide any impact statements and implementation plans for the budgets cuts she proposed. I also believed that when she promised a re-organization plan and came to the Board with the same organizational chart but with the lone inclusion of a single additional employee (whose duties were not fully delineated on the chart) and no modification of the lines of command and control, I expressed the concern that many in the community had.
Third, the Anonymous mudslinger does get one fact correct in reporting that my wife is a teacher. Of course, that is hardly news given that I regularly mention her (particularly when I discuss early childhood education), have amazing pride in her dedication and skill in the classroom and am honored every time she is willing to be seen in public with me. She is a blessing to the children she has taught for more than a decade and to our family. And, as much as I love her, I often do not agree with her about Board of Education matters.
Fourth, the Anonymous Mudslinger wants to taint the Interim Superintendent with the specter that he can't be taken seriously because he must be supported by the union presidents (after all, morale is improving in the schools so it must be a union cabal and not simply having a leader who respects teachers because he once was a classroom teacher)-- after all, the City is running out of money. [More power to you if you can follow that logic.] But, no applicant has yet applied for the Norwalk superintendent's job because it hasn't been posted yet! There are no applicants who can be supported or thwarted. And, although the mudslingers might think that judging one by one's perceived supporters it a fine criteria for evaluating unannounced candidates for unposted jobs, I will keep an open mind and actually evaluate each eventual applicant based upon his or her track record.
Listen, it's not that you're wrong. It's good that you stand up for what you believe in. And it's great that you give us so much detail. But next time "they" knock you, can you just post it "I'm rubber and you're glue. Everything you blog bounces off me and sticks to you". We'll know what you mean.
I agree with 2.53pm. Steve, the fact that you take the time to explain yourself on this site - just shows you stepping down to her level. You are a bright man, and I know you have the interest of all kids in the school system. But it is not necessary for you to defend or respond to critics and stupidity on any blog, twitter or where ever else you choose. It's enough that the public use this and other blogs to blast others and make the school district dysfunctional - and your responses don't need to be part of this. You are a Board Member, handle the issues within the Board committee, not out here - its not appropriate. Keep working for the best interest of the kids and stand firm on what you believe, just do it in a different way, not here.
I disagree with you, 6:44. It's the age of transparency we live in. The public wants the truth about their elected officials. Steve is providing that truth. I admire his honesty as well as his integrity. Isn't that exactly what the Board members campaigned on? Isn't that why we elected them?
Isn't it laughable?...community leaders and NPS stakeholders would have been crucified if public sessions were not availble, yet parent turnout is absent. Who exactly are you all worried about when it comes to input regarding the Super search? Apparently the parents are not concerned and it seems the haters are desperately looking for something to wave a flag about. The district is running without the massive negativity from the past, admins are demanding accountability and they are slowly digging out and up...why is it necessary to find fault? Can someone give an exact point of present failure? I'm not seeing it...
Here are the top four "exact points of present failure": 1. Failure to promote low morale among administrative employees and teachers. 2. Failure to blame anyone and everyone for mistakes. 3. Failure to create a budget in a bubble. 4. Failure to excuse administrative lapses on the fact that Norwalk is in Connecticut and not Maryland.
FDR would be proud of the cleverness . . . "The only thing we have to fail is failure itself. " Good to see that others agree that Daddona brings order, routine and structure to a system that was flailing under the Rookie.
If the BoE is listening to the people who elect them, they will appoint Daddona as Superintendent. Are you listening, Mike and Sue? Do the right thing, for a change.
If Mr. Daddona is going to be appointed Superintendent, they why in God's name are we spending money for a search team. Jobs have been lost, cuts have been made, hours/money has been lost but there is still money left after the 10 mil fiasco to do this?? The tax payers are getting a little frustrated and disgusted with what's going on with NPS. Besides the many issues in NPS that the taxpayers aren't even aware of.
It doesn't matter what the parents want. The vote will not include a ballot for them. The Board will make the decision and the Board is split. How unfortunate. We have a proven leader in the chair and the Board (not all) is too self invloved to see it. That's why there is so much nonsense surrounding this topic. Daddona is proven...Daddona is making it work...Board wants controversy and self interest instead of what works. How ridiculous.
The secret, please appoint me as Superintendent campaign being waged by the interim is incredibly unprofessional. Staff are petrified as evidenced by the no shows at the administrative session.
You wish, RedApple! The teachers and administrators are asking the interim to apply. You are the one creating a campaign of anger and hatred as evidenced by your posts.
For goodness sake...get off it already. If he wants the position he should apply - simple as that. If he fits the profile and it makes sense, then the board must do its job and give him the position. I know he is not waiting for the position to be handed over to him...c'mon, not with all the expense time and non-sense the public is going thru...If teachers & admin really want him cause he is that good...then sit back and let it all fold out. I for one want him to apply and I'm sure right now is not the time for him to do it...he is waiting for the perfect time.
Change! Change! Change! So far Daddona has been a refreshing change. Accountability, the beginning of calmness and support is the order of the day. Secret campains ? Who cares if he is carrying on a campaign to get him the job! His actions in the position have been top notch.
In one post, Steve says the job hasn't been posted yet, and others are talking about giving the job to Daddonna and/or have him apply for it. Logically, after the board decides what it is looking for, with input from the public and we hope from faculty, the job will be posted and advertised in a manner to reach a broad selection of applicants. If the board does an honest job, not influenced by politics, the candidate that seems to best meet their requirements will get the job. If Daddonna is doing as well as some here claim, he should have an advantage, Now is not the time to campaign for anybody, As for Ms Haynie asking questions and expecting her questions and the answers presented before the board be included in the minutes sounds reasonable and making an issue over her trying to insure that happens does not.
I am still shaking my head after hearing about last week's Board of Education meeting. How could anyone defend the special education report? It restated the obvious.
ReplyDeleteThere is favoritism-- look at the services connected families get and look at how the rest of us have to fight for everything.
The report proved that favoritism exists. You know how? Because it only interviewed 8 hand-seleted families and reviewed only about 20 student IEPs.
If the Mayor is getting a 21% raise, will the schools get a measly 3.4%?
ReplyDeleteThe schools will be lucky to get 3.4%, the Cap isn't set yet.
ReplyDeleteLets talk about the Superintendent search...I've heard that there is little to no participation from parents or the community. Do people care any more? Is there more then we is being said? Perhaps Tony is the new Super and we just don't know of it..yet
ReplyDeleteI'm hearing that staff are preferring to fill out the survey due to fear of repercussions from the current leadership and parents like the convenience of the survey. Either way, it is just a sampling. Then again, it could just be the snow that kept all administrators away from their session or maybe the survey is easier. In this district, who ever really knows!
DeleteMy parent perspective- I figured the loudmouths would be at the first sessions. I don't have time to waste hearing about national reading statistics. Ancient history about how great Ralph Sloan was bores me too. And don't get me started about scapegoatinng (collective bargaining is the law even if we don't like it so get over it).
DeleteI will be a future session. Like lots of parents my agenda is what's best for my kids.
It would be great if Daddona gets it. First time in forever there has been accountability. Refreshing!
ReplyDeleteI think it would be great if the guy gets a fair chance.
DeleteYes, the Daddona cheerleaders are in the house. Time to sign off.
ReplyDeleteCheerleaders on one side, haters on the other side.
DeleteWith a few prayers, there will be enough of us in the middle just looking for a fair and open process.
How much hatred can there be in one city? I keep waiting for some Daddona hater to explain what he's doing wrong as interim. I'd also like to know why the Marks fan club thinks that they have to knock down Daddona to make Marks look like she knew what she was doing.
DeleteThere is something wrong with being a Daddona cheerleader? The man is doing an outstanding job! Why do some people have blinders on? Why are there people out to crucify him? It makes zero sense to me.
DeleteIf Daddona is doing an outstanding job - then let him go through the process as anyone else. He is fair game to all. If all are happy with what he is doing - then he has no worries, he will be the next Superintendent. Just as much as there are haters for Marks, there will be for Mr. Daddona. And if Daddona does not get the job, the new one will be hated too!
DeleteI care about due process - he, as any other candidate, has the opportunity to apply and go through the process. All should be done in a fair and appropriate manner - all deserve the chance. I plan to attend the Norwalk High session but I've heard that there's been no participation from the parents at other sessions. I'm sure that the weather played some part but I've seen parents at other events..so not sure why not at these sessions. hmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteThe storm and the holiday does not help things.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Board of Ed's agenda for Tuesday's meeting. They are going into Executive Session to discuss a Board member.
ReplyDeleteHmmm . . . wonder who that could be?
Maybe someone is finally going to make Haynie accountable? That would be appleicious and long time coming!
DeleteI was not alone in asking for the executive session to discuss a member's actions. I posted my reasons on Twitter (@stevecolarossi) and in an email to each of my colleagues.
DeleteIn addition, I am asking that we reject additions to meeting minutes which are an attempt by the same BoE member to distort the meeting record. Roberts Rules (which the Norwalk BOE follows) is clear that minutes do not contain speeches by members- and, even if they did, a member could not provide her own concocted version of statements that may have been made throughout a meeting and re-write it as if it were a single speech. Plus, we just clarified our own policy about meeting minutes to prevent this exact disingenuous conduct (it was nearly unanimously approved).
To those of you who would suggest that the Board of Education has far greater issues with which to contend, I would offer that you should be making that point to the Board member who has habitually expended her colleagues’ time and taxpayer funds not to advance educational objectives but to enshrine her colloquies.
Thanks for answering the question I had as I read your post. I appreciate frustration with a co-worker. But I am curious if there has been any attempt to privately speak with this one member?
DeleteMr. Colorossi has a conflict of interest. He works at the behest of Mr Mellion and Mr Ditrio. Mr Mellion has been absolutely silent since Marks left. Mr Ditrio slightly more honest and passionate. Nonetheless, this exercise that is being lead by Mr. Colorossi is an attempt to smear a fellow board member for simply asking questions. Most of the board asks nothing during presentations, which is unfortunate. Strangely enough, Mr Colorossi had Lots to say when Dr Marks was around as he was directed by Mellion to make her life miserable. It's no secret that the unions would like to see the interim made permanent and things to remain as is until Mellion decides to retire. The reality is that the city is running out of money and Norwalk needs to raise the bar on its leadership. Ms. Haynie may not be as eloquent as Mr Colorossi, but her interests are those of the children and taxpayers. I fear Mr Colorossi is not as straightforward as his wife is also a teacher. That alone is not a problem, but I suspect Mr Colorossi and Ms Haynie come at board issues from different perspectives. If Ms Haynie was the only problem on the Board of Ed, why is Mr Colorossi no longer Finance Chair?
DeleteThis Board member who 'simply asks questions' is on a hate campaign to eliminate the interim. She is NOT just simply asking questions! What rock have you been hiding under? She absolutely has an agenda and that agenda is now affecting the school system in a very negative way. Mr. Colorossi is being transparent and honest. He comes at board issues to help the classroom and the kids. She (Haynie) comes at board issues to fulfill her hate agenda. That's the truth.
DeleteThank you, 6:58 for recognizing the need to hold all Board of Education to the same standard.
DeleteAs for the attempt at a political hatchet job by the earlier poster, the only thing that surprises me is how long that group took to fire their first shot. The 5:15 AM post is no exception as it contains the usual tirade that I am beholden to unions which neither contribute to political campaigns nor offer their members as campaign volunteers, that because my wife is an educator I must have a "conflict of interest" if I am actually advocating for education as a member of the Board of -- wait for it-- EDUCATION. I do admit that I always marvel when that clique refuses to give any concrete examples of my duplicity- I guess my record of achievement rewriting policies and exposing budgetary largesse doesn't make for good copy for them. The problem for them is that the facts speak much more loudly than their insults and obfuscation.
Over the next few posts, I will respond to these insults for a simple reason- even though they are unfounded, bullies need to be shown that their antics are never acceptable.
First, the initial email by Ms. Haynie that prompted my request for review by the Board was one in which she accused the interim superintendent of endangering her and her family's safety because he provided to all BoE members information which she had requested. Mr. Daddona was following a procedure which all Board members agreed was to be implemented. The information regarded something that was not even presently before the BoE for action. The financial information which was requested could have some non-immediate impact on one particular group of employees. And, as a result, Ms. Haynie suggested that some past and present members of this employee group might be prone to do her harm if they learned of it. I found those allegations deeply offensive as similar charges were never leveled at other collective bargaining groups when Ms. Haynie was proposing deep cuts in their ranks.
DeleteSecondly, the Anonymous poster claims that I somehow "made Dr. Marks' life miserable". That was never my goal- I did insist that she, like every administrator, be held accountable for knowing the parameters of the position held and for the acts and omissions committed. I did take exception with some glaring administrative lapses and budgetary mismanagement that were Dr. Marks' responsibility. Each time money was spent in a manner not approved in the budget, or each time someone was overpaid or improperly hired, I believed that we were wasting money that should be spent in the classroom. Let me give you some concrete examples-- (i) her initial hiring of a consultant despite no budgetary authority for that hire, (ii) her providing interim raises and promotions to two employees in December of 2010 which were never disclosed to the BoE or the public, (iii) her repeated hiring of personnel without BoE approval (as required by charter and BoE policy), (iv) her overpaying certain administrative employees even after being advised of the errors, (v) her decisions in the last budget to unfairly target critical elementary school services, (vi) her hiring more than a dozen teaches at the start of the 2011-12 school year that exceeded budget authority and (vii) her refusal to timely provide any impact statements and implementation plans for the budgets cuts she proposed. I also believed that when she promised a re-organization plan and came to the Board with the same organizational chart but with the lone inclusion of a single additional employee (whose duties were not fully delineated on the chart) and no modification of the lines of command and control, I expressed the concern that many in the community had.
Third, the Anonymous mudslinger does get one fact correct in reporting that my wife is a teacher. Of course, that is hardly news given that I regularly mention her (particularly when I discuss early childhood education), have amazing pride in her dedication and skill in the classroom and am honored every time she is willing to be seen in public with me. She is a blessing to the children she has taught for more than a decade and to our family. And, as much as I love her, I often do not agree with her about Board of Education matters.
Fourth, the Anonymous Mudslinger wants to taint the Interim Superintendent with the specter that he can't be taken seriously because he must be supported by the union presidents (after all, morale is improving in the schools so it must be a union cabal and not simply having a leader who respects teachers because he once was a classroom teacher)-- after all, the City is running out of money. [More power to you if you can follow that logic.] But, no applicant has yet applied for the Norwalk superintendent's job because it hasn't been posted yet! There are no applicants who can be supported or thwarted. And, although the mudslingers might think that judging one by one's perceived supporters it a fine criteria for evaluating unannounced candidates for unposted jobs, I will keep an open mind and actually evaluate each eventual applicant based upon his or her track record.
Listen, it's not that you're wrong. It's good that you stand up for what you believe in. And it's great that you give us so much detail. But next time "they" knock you, can you just post it "I'm rubber and you're glue. Everything you blog bounces off me and sticks to you". We'll know what you mean.
DeleteI agree with 2.53pm. Steve, the fact that you take the time to explain yourself on this site - just shows you stepping down to her level. You are a bright man, and I know you have the interest of all kids in the school system. But it is not necessary for you to defend or respond to critics and stupidity on any blog, twitter or where ever else you choose. It's enough that the public use this and other blogs to blast others and make the school district dysfunctional - and your responses don't need to be part of this. You are a Board Member, handle the issues within the Board committee, not out here - its not appropriate. Keep working for the best interest of the kids and stand firm on what you believe, just do it in a different way, not here.
DeleteI disagree with you, 6:44. It's the age of transparency we live in. The public wants the truth about their elected officials. Steve is providing that truth. I admire his honesty as well as his integrity. Isn't that exactly what the Board members campaigned on? Isn't that why we elected them?
DeleteAbout time a board member told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That Haynie woman is filled with vitriol.
DeleteIsn't it laughable?...community leaders and NPS stakeholders would have been crucified if public sessions were not availble, yet parent turnout is absent. Who exactly are you all worried about when it comes to input regarding the Super search? Apparently the parents are not concerned and it seems the haters are desperately looking for something to wave a flag about. The district is running without the massive negativity from the past, admins are demanding accountability and they are slowly digging out and up...why is it necessary to find fault? Can someone give an exact point of present failure? I'm not seeing it...
ReplyDeleteHere are the top four "exact points of present failure":
Delete1. Failure to promote low morale among administrative employees and teachers.
2. Failure to blame anyone and everyone for mistakes.
3. Failure to create a budget in a bubble.
4. Failure to excuse administrative lapses on the fact that Norwalk is in Connecticut and not Maryland.
FDR would be proud of the cleverness . . . "The only thing we have to fail is failure itself. "
DeleteGood to see that others agree that Daddona brings order, routine and structure to a system that was flailing under the Rookie.
If the BoE is listening to the people who elect them, they will appoint Daddona as Superintendent. Are you listening, Mike and Sue? Do the right thing, for a change.
ReplyDeleteIf Mr. Daddona is going to be appointed Superintendent, they why in God's name are we spending money for a search team. Jobs have been lost, cuts have been made, hours/money has been lost but there is still money left after the 10 mil fiasco to do this?? The tax payers are getting a little frustrated and disgusted with what's going on with NPS. Besides the many issues in NPS that the taxpayers aren't even aware of.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't appear to be what the community wants. Tonight at NHS, parents want change.
ReplyDeleteAfter the craziness of Marks, we all want change!
DeleteIt doesn't matter what the parents want. The vote will not include a ballot for them. The Board will make the decision and the Board is split. How unfortunate. We have a proven leader in the chair and the Board (not all) is too self invloved to see it. That's why there is so much nonsense surrounding this topic. Daddona is proven...Daddona is making it work...Board wants controversy and self interest instead of what works. How ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSelf involved Board members? You mean like the member who thinks the rules don't apply to her?
DeleteThe secret, please appoint me as Superintendent campaign being waged by the interim is incredibly unprofessional. Staff are petrified as evidenced by the no shows at the administrative session.
ReplyDeleteYou wish, RedApple! The teachers and administrators are asking the interim to apply. You are the one creating a campaign of anger and hatred as evidenced by your posts.
DeleteFor goodness sake...get off it already. If he wants the position he should apply - simple as that. If he fits the profile and it makes sense, then the board must do its job and give him the position. I know he is not waiting for the position to be handed over to him...c'mon, not with all the expense time and non-sense the public is going thru...If teachers & admin really want him cause he is that good...then sit back and let it all fold out. I for one want him to apply and I'm sure right now is not the time for him to do it...he is waiting for the perfect time.
ReplyDelete"...then the Board must do its job..." there's the rub..
DeleteChange! Change! Change! So far Daddona has been a refreshing change. Accountability, the beginning of calmness and support is the order of the day. Secret campains ? Who cares if he is carrying on a campaign to get him the job! His actions in the position have been top notch.
ReplyDeleteIn one post, Steve says the job hasn't been posted yet, and others are talking about giving the job to Daddonna and/or have him apply for it. Logically, after the board decides what it is looking for, with input from the public and we hope from faculty, the job will be posted and advertised in a manner to reach a broad selection of applicants. If the board does an honest job, not influenced by politics, the candidate that seems to best meet their requirements will get the job. If Daddonna is doing as well as some here claim, he should have an advantage, Now is not the time to campaign for anybody,
ReplyDeleteAs for Ms Haynie asking questions and expecting her questions and the answers presented before the board be included in the minutes sounds reasonable and making an issue over her trying to insure that happens does not.