|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 8, 2009 15:38:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Jun 8, 2009 16:00:36 GMT -6
Thanks for taking the time, money and effort on this Mr. Crockett. First...I lost a buck. Second, a couple of observations: Frist glance...it does not seem to be a contract that is fiscally irresponsible. 25K in relocation costs (not going to cover much) and total compensation not out of line for a district our size. I was surprised about the car, but again, does not seem crazy given the responsibilities of the position. Referenced exhibits are not attached (you would think that a response to a request for the contract would include exhibits to the contract). Makes me wonder if there may be any amendments, addenda, etc. that are missing as well. It would be interesting to see Dr. D's performance reviews and goals (and whether there were any financial rewards tied to the goals). Where is the nap clause  (must be in one of the missing exhibits or amendments) |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 8, 2009 16:13:33 GMT -6
lol, Sashimi
Your're right about the Exhibits, I hadn't had time to read it yet. In doing so, where is Exhibit A if there is a B? I suspect Exhibit B might me the 06 file in Super Search I posted yesterday. Just assuming.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 8, 2009 16:38:14 GMT -6
Thanks for taking the time, money and effort on this Mr. Crockett. First...I lost a buck. Second, a couple of observations: Frist glance...it does not seem to be a contract that is fiscally irresponsible. 25K in relocation costs (not going to cover much) and total compensation not out of line for a district our size. I was surprised about the car, but again, does not seem crazy given the responsibilities of the position. Referenced exhibits are not attached (you would think that a response to a request for the contract would include exhibits to the contract). Makes me wonder if there may be any amendments, addenda, etc. that are missing as well. It would be interesting to see Dr. D's performance reviews and goals (and whether there were any financial rewards tied to the goals). Where is the nap clause (must be in one of the missing exhibits or amendments) needed to include GPS for the car so he could find his way to Naperville town functions like COC and Rotary -- no show for 2 years. He could talk to jlc - you can get anywhere in this district in 10-12 minutes..  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 8, 2009 16:46:29 GMT -6
Is my math wrong on his raises? ... was he going to be 15% higher in year 3 at 260Kish after having started at 225K in 2007?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 8, 2009 16:48:33 GMT -6
'outside responsibilities'
Is seeking employment elsewhere while under contract considered a 'conflict of interest' ?
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 8, 2009 18:40:31 GMT -6
All seemed to be in order, why exactly was this posted?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 8, 2009 19:26:13 GMT -6
All seemed to be in order, why exactly was this posted? Why not ? If all is in order than it should pose no threat or harm to anyone...... yet if there are any missing pieces/bonuses that might explain some things..since we spring for this salary I believe we have a right to know. We know so little else here..as to how things like $150M are being spent it is nice to have information -- positive or negative IMHO. If it's all positive and on the up and up shouldn't it count as a positive..? Filed in the archives it ends negative speculation. It's not that I don't like positives- I do...just so few have come my way lately. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 8, 2009 21:21:23 GMT -6
All seemed to be in order, why exactly was this posted? SSSM, what don't you get about transparency? This is the second time you have raised this issue. By the way, what is or is not "in order," and who the hell are you to decide what should go on this board? |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 8, 2009 22:07:01 GMT -6
All seemed to be in order, why exactly was this posted? SSSM, what don't you get about transparency? This is the second time you have raised this issue. By the way, what is or is not "in order," and who the hell are you to decide what should go on this board? Fair question was asked...your response was far more out of line. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 8, 2009 22:10:08 GMT -6
I believe the answer is simply Disclosure. It was posted because he said he had FOIAd it and would post it. There it is.
Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 8, 2009 22:29:30 GMT -6
Transparency is an interesting concept, one that can be twisted in the wind. I guess it all depends on which direction the wind is blowing.
Arch if it was simply disclosure fair enough now it is disclosed.
Macrockett easy there big fella.... just asking what all the fuss was about since it looked to be in order.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 8, 2009 22:29:52 GMT -6
I believe the answer is simply Disclosure. It was posted because he said he had FOIAd it and would post it. There it is. Simple as that. I got it....I didn't understand the gnashing of teeth  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 8, 2009 23:15:50 GMT -6
I believe the answer is simply Disclosure. It was posted because he said he had FOIAd it and would post it. There it is. Simple as that. I got it....I didn't understand the gnashing of teeth As my mother in law loves to say... you won't always understand the 'why'. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 6:20:32 GMT -6
SSSM, what don't you get about transparency? This is the second time you have raised this issue. By the way, what is or is not "in order," and who the hell are you to decide what should go on this board? Fair question was asked...your response was far more out of line. SSSM wrote: "Transparency is an interesting concept, one that can be twisted in the wind. I guess it all depends on which direction the wind is blowing. Arch if it was simply disclosure fair enough now it is disclosed. Macrockett easy there big fella.... just asking what all the fuss was about since it looked to be in order. " My comments to the above:
I'm sorry to be blunt, and I bring both SSSM and Steckdads comments together for the same reason. Q to SSSM: How do you know there is nothing in the Superintendent's contract that is "out of the ordinary"? I would assume your answer would be..."Because I read it, duh" And I would respond, "How were you able to do that SSSM? And you would most likely say" Because you posted it, duh!" And I would say, exactly! I dont have a problem with you saying, "Doesn't look like there is anything interesting there." But you didn't stop there. You said, as you have said on another occassion, "why post it?" My answer is simple, so everyone could come to a conclusion based on seeing the information themselves. Would it be better for me to say, "Yes, I FOIA'd it, but there's nothing there. Move on to something else." Would everyone believe me? Perhaps, but why not post it just the same. I was at the Board meeting last night and one of the things I spoke about was transparency. I am simply practicing what I preach. When you asked the question, "why post?" you should have been able to answer the question yourself, yet I have to do that for you. Now Steckdad, more of the same from you. On the green you questioned me about my motivation. How will things change for me. If you were paying attention Steckdad, I have already answered that question at the IPPC forum (and I believe questionaire), in the Scullen questionaire, at the NAHC forum and questionaire and probably several others. |
|
(must be in one of the missing exhibits or amendments)
