Re: nepotism and voting on contracts

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : : : : : : : A question for you, Mr. Dodge. If you eliminate the school board, who would run the District and how would this person or persons be selected? : : : : : : : : : : I think the district should be run like a business. You hire a CEO. You can have it as a referendum vote. The CEO can take the place of the superintendent. He then hires a staff, such as a CFO, Any special needs staffing such as the members of the administration presently have. You trust the CEO to make the decisions that are the most financially feasible and that provide the best learning environment for the student. Then you daon't have the consolidationist or the communty mided folks. Every four years you can vote for a new CEO. So in essence he will be the only elected official in the scheme. If you face the facts, most board members are there to further their personal agendas, or the agenda of the people in their communty. So maybe what they want is the best for their community but not for the district in general. It may sound far fetched, but I think it could work well if you iron out all the wrinkles. I of couse am no expert, but that is how I would evision it working. : : : : : : : : : I'm not for that either, neccessarily. : : : : : : : : : Who hires the CEO? Who does HE hire? What are the rules on who can and cannot be hired? : : : : : : : : : Bottmon line, If you have any ties to anybody who works for the school district (especially spouse) you should not be in any position to control the district itself. : : : : : : : : : I suppose the only legal way to do it would be to say that anybody related to a district employee(s) by blood or marriage, will not be permitted to sit on the board and nobody related by blood or marriage to a board member(s) will be hired as an employee of the district. : : : : : : : : I would also add that anyone with ties to any outfit supplying supplies to the district, or performing any tasks for the district should also be restricted. Any outfits with contracts to the district should be exempted also along with their family members. : : : : : : : : With the district being the largest employer in the district that may be tough to find qualified individuals. Plus, how many other individuals do you feel woud run for this job? : : : : : : : I have no idea how many. : : : : : : : One or two people without personal interests is better than 500 people with personal interests. : : : : : : : I'd rather see somebody on the board for the good of the students AND taxpayers, than a bunch of people with direct ties to those employed by the district or retired district teachers themselves. : : : : : : : We would also be better assured that the district hired qualified personel, rather than their spouses or family members. : : : : : : : : : : : You said "I'd rather see somebody on the board for the good of the students AND taxpayers, than a bunch of people with direct ties to those employed by the district or retired district teachers themselves." How do you know these individuals are not on the board for the good of the students AND taxpayers. I feel there are several good members on the board. Although I may not agree with some of their motivations, i admire them for having the courage to give their time to the board. these folks are not being paid. I also admire their ability to ignore folks coming on these boards and accusing them of things these folks have no ideas about. Like I said Jon I agree with your thoughts, but I think you definitley have a cross to burn with Joe Close. Your whole post seems to be directed soley at him. I know Joe and I am sure if you approached him with your concerns he would talk to ya. : : : : : : : : : : How do I know...? Look at this district. Every aspect of it is messed up and they are trying to make it even more so. : : : : : The point of the whole subject is that regardless of what good somebody MAY do by serving on the board. If they have ties to district employees, they should not be on the board. : : : : : I have no "cross to burn". I quit naming him did I not? YOU for some reason had to bring his name back up. Even after applauding my efforts NOT to name him further. What's with that? : : : : : Why did YOU choose to post on THIS thread, even after posting: "P.s. I like your second post better. Calling folks out by name can be dangerous. If you remember it was just a month ago when individuals were threatened with lawsuits over posts on this boar." ? : : : : : : : : I was simply saying you wear your feelings on your shirt sleeve. You have problems with certain elected officials. I do too. But after the election, I can understand what each district wants. They elected their individuals and should be represented by them. I know not everyone agrees with my thoughts but I am not going to slam other members of the board. their communtites have spoken and they have the right to be represented by who they want. : : : Many of the "elected individuals" were not "elected". They are only "elected" if somebody runs against them. These individuals were simply the only ones who wanted to be on the board and the only ones who "ran" for the seat. This doesn't mean they are qualified, nor does it mean they truly represent the voters of the region. : : : There will be at the very least 3 members on the board that didn't face opposition to get "elected". Since you get all upset when names are mentioned, I'll just say they are the one you are so chummy with, and two of the ones who just ran unopposed. There are others, I'm sure, but of the top of my head I can't think of who they are. : : : Even facing opposition does not neccessarily mean a candidate is qualified or that he represents the voters. It often just means he was the lesser of two evils. : : : : All I hear from you is complaint after complaint about ASD. Why don't you really get involved and participate in the actual process instead of hiding behind anonymous posts on this message board which represents 1/1000th of the actual population in the district. : I am involved. To the extent that I can be. My schedule does not permit me to make it to the meetings, let alone to be on the board. Even if I did the fact that I don't have any kids in the district would inevitably make me a "black sheep". This is one of the major problems with the board though. It's all about "the children", not about the taxpayers. Sure everybody wants what's best for their kids. That's understandable, but you also have to put some thought into the taxpayers. Not just the taxpayers with kids, but ALL the taxpayers. Somebody without kids should not face losing their home just so those with kids can get what they want. Somebody who bought their home 30 years ago and is now retired and on a fixed income should not have to pay $200 a month to live in their own home, let alone be facing even higher taxes in the years to come just so their neighbors kid can be on a better football team. : Forgive me. I kind of got off track a little. : Anyhow, what's "anonymous" about the posts? My name is Jon. Is yours "do something"...or are you "Got Out Of Dodge" : How do you know what portion of the population this board "represents"...whatever that means?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: