http://www.thechronicleonline.com/news/local_news/article_9ab0f3fc-445c-11e0-b7b0-001cc4c03286.html
There are so many great quotes, it's hard to know where to start.
"It's a long-standing issue in the Central School District faced by superintendents in the district for the last two-plus decades" Really? How many other superintendents have faced a vote of no confidence from both their staff and the community? How many board recalls have there been? Unlike Hunter, I've actually lived in this community for two-plus decades and I don't know of any.
The community letter of no confidence " . . . is identical to the complaint submitted last year" that was found by the board and legal counsel to be groundless. What complaint is that? Susan Stoops said just a couple of months ago that there hadn't been any complaints. Does he mean the vote of no confidence declared by his staff in 2009? That vote focused on his relationship with teachers and classified workers. The community letters also focused on student achievement and his management of the bond - things that hadn't been raised as issues when the vote of no confidence was taken.
"A philosophical difference of opinion" about the role of the board in managing the day-to-day operations of the district. Here, I think he is referring to me - I have long suspected that he has spun our contentious relationship into a situation in which certain board members (i.e., me) wanted to help make all adminstrative decsions. Like what? I'd like him to name even one. I never asked to make administrative decsions although I did think that as a board member I had the right to know what they were. He disagreed and I had to use the public records law just to find out what he was doing -- while I was a board member!
He's just following the law, "A good superintendent better stand up to this and say we can't violate law." This one is pretty humorous and might just come back to haunt him. I wonder which laws he is referring to . . .
And my absolute favorite - "It's not me." Yes, it most certainly is!
Hunter also told the folks in St. Helens that he was responsible for "huge" improvements in test scores in our district. For a refutation of that claim see my posts "Priorities" from August 7, "Test Scores" from August 8, and "Comparisons to Similar Districts" from August 17. You can find links to each post in the Blog Archive in the right hand column of this page.
ReplyDeleteThat is ridiculous!!! Do you think he really believes himself when he says those things? Regardless, I think St. Helen's will not hire him, I would be very suprised if they did which makes me sad even though I would never wish a super like him on anyone, I was hopeful that he would be replaced.
ReplyDeleteI have worked in this district since 1981. I may be getting old(er) but I cannot recall ever having a vote of no confidence of a supt. by teachers, classified or the public against a superinendent or a recall of a board member. I'm not sure where JH is getting his information. As he once told me in a meeting, there is no history that counts before I got here.
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happened to the audit that the board asked to be done on JH's leave? I talked with a former employee that was interviewed on this, and it appeared that it would not be favorable to JH. Also, I know the District Office support staff is suffering with their cuts and have asked for help, to be told the budget can't support it, and then they rehire Forrest Bell at $40 an hour???? The staff is so ignored.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to know why KS declined to comment when contacted by the reporter.
ReplyDeleteIf Hunter is really bad as a superintendent why not take advantage of an opportunity express that directly in a newspaper article? If we've got good evidence against the guy why not get the details published so the people in St. Helens can see it?
There wasn't even a mention of this blog in the story. Why not?
They called me at work - if they know who I am and where I work they also know my opinion of Hunter. It had already been announced that St. Helens was re-opening their search so it was clear that they knew there were problems. I felt no need to add to what has been expressed in this blog or reported in the Itemizer-Observer. I don't know why the blog wasn't mentioned in the story. There are many people in our district who saw the St. Helens job as our best chance to get rid of Hunter. It just seemed best to refrain from direct comment - St. Helens has been warned and they can draw their own conclusions. I doubt Hunter's "spin" on what has happened here improved their opinion of him.
ReplyDelete