Saying one thing
Granted, I don't really have an opinion one way or another regarding the dismissal of Cedar Shoals principal Tommy Craft, but I do have some disagreement with my friend and former boss, Jason Winders, though he appears to be doing a good job of disagreeing with himself.
Of course, let's leave aside the notion that criticizing a local board of education for adhering to state law is rather odd to say the least since it would make sense to criticize the law and not the local officials, but no matter.
Jason Winders, Jan. 15, 2008 ...
Such was the case with the de facto firing of Cedar Shoals High School Principal Tommy Craft.
Last week, board members voted not to renew Craft’s contract at their regular January meeting. No board member would comment about why they decided not to retain Craft after the school year ends, citing a state law that prohibits public discussion of personnel contracts. Of course, no board member ever comments on personnel decision. That’s why controversy circulates around them constantly.
Since the decision (and continuing this morning) questions have been raging over why the board refused to renew the popular principal’s contract. Even the principal himself admits the firing was “a shock.” A chunk from this morning’s edition: I got a glowing report Dec. 12, and (Interim Superintendent James Simms) said he'd heard no negative comments about me or the direction of Cedar Shoals. Three weeks later, to hear this was quite a blow - a shock."
Listen, Tommy, you’ve been here long enough to know that nothing should shock you when it comes to this school board. And as for questions about this latest gaff, well, I gotta admit I have them as well.
Jason Winders, Dec. 4, 2004 ...
And as the hired leader of that school, it remains (Craft's) job to oversee the education of our kids on the basics and send them out into the world prepared. I think I speak for most when I say if we want to spark discussion of the changing political and religious scenes, we'll do it at home.
Got us there, Tommy?
You're not a good warrior for the Lord here. You're a principal who made a bad call.
But where's the outcry from school district officials? I mean, at what point is enough enough in this school system? See, we make the teachers of this district jump through any number of benchmarks and accountability standards, but this is allowed to fly.
... And trust me, this stuff will continue until someone stands up and demands some accountability. So don't look for it to end any time soon.
Of course, let's leave aside the notion that criticizing a local board of education for adhering to state law is rather odd to say the least since it would make sense to criticize the law and not the local officials, but no matter.
Jason Winders, Jan. 15, 2008 ...
Such was the case with the de facto firing of Cedar Shoals High School Principal Tommy Craft.
Last week, board members voted not to renew Craft’s contract at their regular January meeting. No board member would comment about why they decided not to retain Craft after the school year ends, citing a state law that prohibits public discussion of personnel contracts. Of course, no board member ever comments on personnel decision. That’s why controversy circulates around them constantly.
Since the decision (and continuing this morning) questions have been raging over why the board refused to renew the popular principal’s contract. Even the principal himself admits the firing was “a shock.” A chunk from this morning’s edition: I got a glowing report Dec. 12, and (Interim Superintendent James Simms) said he'd heard no negative comments about me or the direction of Cedar Shoals. Three weeks later, to hear this was quite a blow - a shock."
Listen, Tommy, you’ve been here long enough to know that nothing should shock you when it comes to this school board. And as for questions about this latest gaff, well, I gotta admit I have them as well.
Jason Winders, Dec. 4, 2004 ...
And as the hired leader of that school, it remains (Craft's) job to oversee the education of our kids on the basics and send them out into the world prepared. I think I speak for most when I say if we want to spark discussion of the changing political and religious scenes, we'll do it at home.
Got us there, Tommy?
You're not a good warrior for the Lord here. You're a principal who made a bad call.
But where's the outcry from school district officials? I mean, at what point is enough enough in this school system? See, we make the teachers of this district jump through any number of benchmarks and accountability standards, but this is allowed to fly.
... And trust me, this stuff will continue until someone stands up and demands some accountability. So don't look for it to end any time soon.
posted by Jmac at 3:50 PM
12 Comments:
BOE members and all other elected officials have a number of responsibilities when it comes to personnel matters - responding to baiting from the press isn't one of them.
Al
JMac - state law ALLOWS elected bodies to discuss personnel decisions in closed session. It does not prohibit officials from opening the discussion if they wish, or telling people about it afterward.
This comment has been removed by the author.
And to think, if that's why they let him go, it only took three years to get around to it. Nice work. I don’t see these two items as inconsistent of one another. He should have been called out on his stupidity then, but wasn’t. Now, he was wronged. Come on, JMac, I know you need to play it close to the vest for that future commission run, but strike out with an opinion here. I know it’s easy to pck on the messenger, but you see nothing wrong on either end of this?
Sorry I deleted the first one. User error.
The Georgia Open Meetings Law does not impact ...
Meetings when discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment,compensation, hiring, disciplinary action or dismissal, or periodic evaluation or rating of a public officer or employee but not when receiving evidence or hearing argument on charges filed to determine disciplinary action or dismissal of a public officer or employee. The vote on any matter covered by this paragraph shall be taken in public and minutes of the meeting as provided in this chapter shall be made available. Meetings by an agency to discuss or take action on the filling of a vacancy in the membership of the
agency itself shall at all times be open to the public as provided in this chapter;
One reading of this makes it appear that this open meetings law flatly does not apply and could be construed as a mandate keep it closed-door.
Another reading, which is more likely, is along the lines as Blake indicated, and that's if this is a power granted to local governments, then it can be assumed that individual agencies have it in them to determine to keep open or not.
Obviously the Clarke County BOE has adopted to make personnel decisions private, and for obvious reasons. It's done to permit a more open discussion, one would imagine, and protect the individual(s) being discussed. Also, logic would dictate that you wouldn't hold a closed door meeting on a particular issue and then start running your mouth about it as soon as you emerged. Granted, it keeps the details out of the public record, but the resulting press coverage and word-of-mouth would ultimately be worse methinks.
And it isn't as if they don't face any negative consequences from actions such as Craft's dismissal (press scrutiny, voter discontent, etc.). While I don't particularly care either way about this issue, if a number of folks are upset enough by it, they'll let their voices be heard at the ballot box (and, truth be told, we could use a healthy dose of contested BOE races to inject fresh debate and ideas into that body).
As of right now, the Clarke County BOE wants to adhere to the authority granted to them by state law and keep these matters closed. I think it's a sound overall policy even if the firing of Craft might be, as some figure, an ill-advised personnel decision.
Come on, JMac, I know you need to play it close to the vest for that future commission run ...
Everyone seems to think I'm running but me. Though I apparently know where to track down a number of solid campaign advisors.
I know it’s easy to pck on the messenger, but you see nothing wrong on either end of this?
Honestly, I don't really have one. I would have supported getting rid of Craft a few years back when he was spouting off at the intercom, but, as you note, the board didn't act and they should have.
I'm not saying the BOE is a saint in this thing, but I also think that, as with most personnel decisions, it was a long time coming. And, as we know, Craft had a record and perhaps something happened recently, or in the past year, that cemented his fate.
But this appears to be two different discussions. I think one can accept that Craft was (possibly) wronged in his dismissal while also accepting that the existing closed door policy for personnel deliberations is a proper way to conduct business.
If you don't run, what the hell am I going to do with all these JMac in '08 T-shirts?
The ones with the flames shooting out of the '08?
lol I'd rather talk about JMac in 08, which district do you live in?
Well, heck. As much as I dislike the BOE, I don't think it is our business why they hire or fire. and as it's a right-to-work state, and technically there is no tenure, then that decision is made entirely at their pleasure.
Besides which, there could be additional reasons which they may not want made public, for their sake or Craft's.
I live in District Six.
Post a Comment
<< Home