'09 Primary Preview - PilcheskyDeceit True Freedom of Speech

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Sun Dec 21 9:35 AM, 2008

'09 Primary Preview	Permalink

I completely respect your opinion Agam but it is directly contrary to what the framers of the original law intended. They did not want professional "school people" on the school board. Crazy!!... you may be thinking right now, but not when you understand what the boards responsibility were supposed to be, not what recently boards have actually begun doing. (i.e. handing themselves--Missy Jan-- cozy jobs and all their little friends, as well) For instance, they are supposed to be engaging in overseeing the needs of their district, such as making a resolution that X amount of people are need to fully staff the needs of the first grade students for x school year. Once the board establish the criteria, the intent was then for the board to back off, allow their administration to find, interview candidates, and then for the Superintendent to recommend the candidates who are qualified to the board tofill those needed positions. At that point, the board would reconvene and approve the Superintendent's recommendations. (The superintendent and solicitor are the only positions they should take a direct hand in hiring, as they will function as their eyes and ears on the ground and their legal counsel) Another words, they are just supposed to be in a position of legislation, not management. They (recent boards) have corrupted the original intent and have begun to micro-manage. They actually have tried to 'run" the districts which as you have pointed out they have no qualifications to do,....nor frankly any legal right to do either. The reason the framers wanted the board to be everyday normal people was to make sure the people "overseeing" not "running" the district would be members of the community. They would most likely have or have had children in the district so it was thought they would have a vested interest in the district doing well. Also, as they would not be school professionals themselves, it was thought they would have no vested interest in doing well themselves ala Missy Jan. They were to be advised as to the mission of the district and the steps necessary to reach that mission by their Superintendent who, of course, would have nothing but experience, since they can not get their letter of certification until they complete, in addition to the required schooling, a period of time working at a administration level position. I believe that time is around 3 years. So as you now can see, it was also the intent of the framers to have a "business" like atmosphere at the board level. The board of <insert any company name> would never get involved in the day to day operations of the company in the manner that recent school boards have been doing regularly. They appoint a CEO and give him the green light to implement the mission and goals of the company. The Super/CEO are, naturally, fully answerable to the board so they have a vested interest in doing things well or they will be on the bread line very fast. That is what was supposed to happen and probably did for a period of time, now it is run like a private little kingdom with many kings. Sad -- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 09:39, 2008-12-21 __________________ Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

Agamemnon

DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline

Posts: 3768

Date: Sun Dec 21 10:06 PM, 2008

'09 Primary Preview	Permalink

IHave...I actually agree with most of what you posted. I guess where we differ is in regard to the role and definition of "normal people". For example, I don't think that a laywer sitting on a school board will actually practice law within the scope of their board appointment...but...they would use their knowledge of the law to help guide the board when it makes the larger, strategic decisions it needs to make. Having special skills or knowledge doesn't make that someone the opposite of "normal"...it just gives them additional insight that, in theory, benefit the boards decision-making process. I absolutely agree that boards...Scranton included...have often times become nothing more than self-serving opportunity zones for those that hold the positions. The Evans example is a classic, but it's sadly not alone. The Scranton School Board has become really nothing more than a pass-thru for political types, offering no real strategic guidance and often times becomeing an impediment to progress. The fact that it took something like two decades to build a new Scranton High School (and the fact that it was built too small...thanks for that one Gary DiBileo) is proof. Also in the "my opinion" department, the administration of the Scranton School District is bloated and at times inefficient. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of new thinking, as evidenced by the annual high-ball then low-ball game with taxes ("Taxes will have to increase by 8%...but don't worry, we will cut things and they will only go up 4%...and you can thank us later"), and there are seemingly no challenges to the status quo. I'm not saying that programs should be cut, but I am saying that every program should be evaluated annually...sports included...and it should have to earn the right to be funded. Nothing other than having up-to-date textbooks and honoring union contracts should taken for granted. Ok, that's enough rambling for me, although one of these day's I'll have to tell my "District CEO Sheridan" story. Wait, better save that one for the Moderator forum. -- Edited by Agamemnon at 22:09, 2008-12-21 __________________ Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.

IHavehadenoughofhaters

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Mon Dec 22 7:48 AM, 2008

'09 Primary Preview	Permalink

Agamemnon wrote: For example, I don't think that a laywer sitting on a school board will actually practice law within the scope of their board appointment...but...they would use their knowledge of the law to help guide the board when it makes the larger, strategic decisions it needs to make. Actually I witnessed a sitting board member who was also a lawyer do just that, they imposed their own "spin" on the law in direct conflict with the sitting solicitors legal advise. That board member nearly put the district into a very expensive lawsuit which the school district would have lost big time. However the so called board-member lawyer would have benefited had the board gone his way. (Not directly which would have been too obvious but indirectly which is how most get away with the activity) School law is very specific area of law and is not easily practiced off the cuff by general lawyer. Sort of the difference between a general practitioner and a surgeon they are both Dr's and equally very educated but not completely the same. Also if you follow the advise of the sitting solicitor even if you end up doing something incorrectly you will be covered by the errors and omissions policy of the district. Go outside the solicitors advice and you are flying alone and can be sued as an individual without coverage from the E&O policy. So using a board members legal advice would be risky in any event. Ok, that's enough rambling for me, although one of these day's I'll have to tell my "District CEO Sheridan" story. Wait, better save that one for the Moderator forum. LOL I shall look forward to that. -- Edited by Agamemnon at 22:09, 2008-12-21 -- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 07:49, 2008-12-22 __________________ Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

Glenn Cashuric

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 505

Date: Sun Jan 4 9:42 AM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

Elected school boards are a thing of the past and should be outlawed. The Mid Valley School Board has done more damage in the past year with its junkets and political hack appointments than should be legally allowed. Statewide standards for hiring and curriculum should be strictly outlined and enforced. It should not be placed in the hands of those who (a) may not even be educated and (b) know nothing about that which they are overseeing. GC __________________

IHavehadenoughofhaters

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Sun Jan 4 9:59 AM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

I probably didn't make my post clear enough. I wasn't suggesting whether school boards are good or bad I was just saying how the code for them is written and why it was written that way. I believe it was written sometime around 1942 so .......that explains a bit as well. :)) __________________ Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

rare form

Newbie

Status: Offline

Posts: 14

Date: Wed Jan 7 9:12 PM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

Glenn Cashuric wrote: Elected school boards are a thing of the past and should be outlawed. From your mouth to God's ears. __________________

IHavehadenoughofhaters

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Wed Jan 7 9:17 PM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

welcome rare. :) __________________ Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

rare form

Newbie

Status: Offline

Posts: 14

Date: Wed Jan 7 9:27 PM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

Thank you. __________________

doomers

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 309

Date: Fri Jan 9 2:34 PM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

ANYONE that doesn't have the rubber stamp. __________________ Joe P., truly an racist a s s.

Agamemnon

DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline

Posts: 3768

Date: Sat Jan 10 9:13 PM, 2009

RE: '09 Primary Preview	Permalink

Good luck with that one Glenn...there are people in this country that swear there is a ZOG conspiracy to fluoridate water...now what would they think if "big government" took over their schools? Horrible things...like teaching Science in Science class...might be required. __________________ Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.