|
|
Post by concerned2 on Jun 9, 2009 6:29:42 GMT -6
I appreciate Mr. Croockett's posts. Having this out in the open can also cut down on some of the mistruths and misconceptions. Transparency is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by anteater on Jun 9, 2009 8:01:48 GMT -6
Thanks for posting this. Given that we are in the process of hiring a new superintendent, and at least one BM's comment that the contract is only to protect the employee, it seems particularly timely. It might not be a bad idea to have some type of penalty for not fulfilling the contract (i.e., repaying some of the moving expenses). They could always take up a collection in southern Indiana for that purpose. This notion about transparency being an interesting concept that can be twisted is a new one on me - definitely sounds like somethign our SB or administration would say. Beyond that, these imaginary conversations occuring in Mike's head are more than a little disconcerting!  |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 8:23:17 GMT -6
I also have the contracts for Ms. Birkett and Ms. Valenta, but I question whether I should post those, as SSSM might conclude "all seem to be in order" or, in the alternative, I have stepped on the toes ....
Maybe we can take a pole before we post everything to see if we should, in fact, post anything.
One last comment on transparency regarding a document, it is what it is. It is the spin on the document, that creates the twist.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jun 9, 2009 9:17:38 GMT -6
macrockett-Thanks for the post of the contract. I do find this very interesting and appreciate the information.
I found something a little strange. In the final year of the contract, if he decided NOT to extend the contract, he needed to let the board know by February 1st.
Not only is he not extending it, he is leaving 1 year early and let the board know well after the February 1st deadline. This time frame really puts the board behind the eight ball in the search for a new super.
I would like to know if there is some type of penalty involved for walking away from his contract.
My gut feeling on this is that after the Gregory incident and how he handled it, the board pretty much gave him the pink slip - Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 9, 2009 9:56:33 GMT -6
There will also be an attempt to pin as much to him as possible when he leaves, hoping he takes all the 'bad' with him, even it it wasn't his own doing... then watch for the "we're just one big happy district, everything's awesome again" spiel.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 9, 2009 12:30:15 GMT -6
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. thanks..I will check out your responses. that would have been far more appropriate than your original response to me... |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jun 9, 2009 17:38:46 GMT -6
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. thanks..I will check out your responses. that would have been far more appropriate than your original response to me... Steckdad, Your Churchill quote is intriquing/worrisome to me. What are you implying? |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 9, 2009 21:00:05 GMT -6
Macy, I think he's referring to our necessary (and justifiable) criticism of the District, reveiling it's unhealthy state. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 9, 2009 21:29:37 GMT -6
thanks..I will check out your responses. that would have been far more appropriate than your original response to me... Steckdad, Your Churchill quote is intriquing/worrisome to me. What are you implying? just food for thought..kinda like my ditka quote at the bottom of my posts. hopefully you have better things to worry about |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 9, 2009 21:45:41 GMT -6
Steckdad, Your Churchill quote is intriquing/worrisome to me. What are you implying? just food for thought..kinda like my ditka quote at the bottom of my posts. hopefully you have better things to worry about One could also say the future makes new losers out of those who ignore the past. |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jun 9, 2009 22:33:28 GMT -6
Steckdad, Your Churchill quote is intriquing/worrisome to me. What are you implying? just food for thought..kinda like my ditka quote at the bottom of my posts. hopefully you have better things to worry about Quoting Churchill is always a good thing, to me at least, but I feel anyone that throws out a quote from history should take into account the time/date that the quote came from. June 18, 1940 was not a great time for Britain (nor Churchill). If I'm not mistaken, when Churchill spoke those words he was responding to the impending Nazi onslaught that seemed possible at the time. As far as you worrying about me having better things to worry about?? I had two Uncles die in 1944/1945 in WWII.... Honoring them is something I worry about every day. Stick to Ditka quotes from now on as far as I'm concerned. “If God had wanted man to play soccer, He wouldn't have given us arms”.... Mike Ditka |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 9, 2009 22:40:38 GMT -6
Here's my all time favorite Ditka quote: “If God had wanted man to play soccer, He wouldn't have given us arms” Sorry soccer fans, it's funny! We are all destined to be goalies or do throw-ins  |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 9, 2009 22:55:53 GMT -6
just food for thought..kinda like my ditka quote at the bottom of my posts. hopefully you have better things to worry about Quoting Churchill is always a good thing, to me at least, but I feel anyone that throws out a quote from history should take into account the time/date that the quote came from. June 18, 1940 was not a great time for Britain (nor Churchill). If I'm not mistaken, when Churchill spoke those words he was responding to the impending Nazi onslaught that seemed possible at the time. As far as you worrying about me having better things to worry about?? I had two Uncles die in 1944/1945 in WWII.... Honoring them is something I worry about every day. Stick to Ditka quotes from now on as far as I'm concerned. “If God had wanted man to play soccer, He wouldn't have given us arms”.... Mike Ditka better things to worry about than my quotes Macy..not your deceased family members (heroes for sure IMO)....your attempt to add drama where none is needed is silly IMO. maybe we can have a poll so all posters here can defend their quotes. Or do you just want an answer from the only poster not "on board" here? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 9, 2009 23:18:12 GMT -6
Or do you just want an answer from the only poster not "on board" here? There is no 'on' or 'off' board here, by virtue of the fact that there is a lack of bans (except for one) since Feb 2008 when the keys changed hands. There was one and only one due to a posting during election time from an account that supplied an irrelevant and non existent email at signup which was a smear post. It was even a posting against the incumbency too (you know, that group we 'hate', as you put it). |
|
